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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/2026 has been entered.
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 8, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsura (JP H0616020 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 8, Katsura discloses a tire (title), comprising: a tread portion (1); a pair of bead cores (6); a carcass layer (2) extended across the bead cores (6); and a belt layer (5) disposed on an outer side of the carcass layer (2) in a radial direction (see Figs. 1 and 2; [0011]-[0012]). Katsura further discloses that the tire has a size of 175/70R13 ([0016]), which has an outer diameter OD 575.2 mm (330.2+2*175*0.7), reading on the claimed range 200
≤
OD
≤
660, and a total tire width SW of 175 mm, reading on the claimed range 100
≤
SW
≤
400. Regarding the claimed internal volume calculated when the tire is mounted on a specified rim, examiner notes that the claims are directed to a tire, not a tire-rim assembly. Thus, the tire of Katsura merely needs to be capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed volume is realized since the internal volume is highly dependent upon the structure of the rim. As it stands, Katsura does disclose that the tire is capable of being mounted on a rim (see Fig. 1; [0011]). Therefore, given that Katsura reads on all of the structural limitations of the tire in claim 8, it is clear that the tire of Katsura would also be capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed internal volume relationship is realized. Furthermore, the claimed specified internal pressure and unloaded state are merely intended use limitations that fail to require further structure to the tire. Thus, as the tire of Katsura is capable of being mounted on a specified rim, it is also capable of being inflated to a specified internal pressure and being in an unloaded state. As such, Katsura satisfies all of the limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. As noted above, examiner notes that the claimed volume relationships in claims 21 and 22 are dependent upon the rim to which the claimed tire is mounted. However, since the claims are directed to a tire and not a tire-rim assembly, Katsura merely needs to disclose a tire capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed internal volume relationship is realized. Therefore, since Katsura does disclose that the tire is capable of being mounted on a rim (see Fig. 1; [0011]), it is clear that the tire of Katsura would also be capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed internal volume relationships are satisfied.
Regarding claim 24, Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Regarding the claimed specified internal pressure, examiner notes that this limitation is merely an intended use limitation that does not require further structure to the claimed tire. Thus, since Katsura discloses that the tire is capable of being mounted on a rim and inflated to a specified internal pressure (see Fig. 1; [0011]; [0017]), it is clear that the tire of Katsura would also be capable of satisfying the claimed internal pressure in claim 24.
Claims 8 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kon et al. (US 2022/0048327) (Kon).
Regarding claim 8, Kon discloses a tire (title), comprising: a tread portion (20); a pair of bead cores (60); a carcass layer extending across the bead cores (60); and a belt layer (50) disposed on an outer side of the carcass layer (40) in a radial direction (see Figs. 2 and 3; [0044]). Kon further discloses that the tire has an outer diameter OD in a range of 350 mm or more and 500 mm or less ([0034]), reading on the claimed range 200
≤
OD
≤
660. Kon further discloses that the tire has a total tire width SW in a range of 125 mm or more and 255 mm or less ([0032]), reading on the claimed range 100
≤
SW
≤
400. Regarding the claimed internal volume calculated when the tire is mounted on a specified rim, examiner notes that the claims are directed to a tire, not a tire-rim assembly. Thus, the tire of Kon merely needs to be capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed volume is realized since the internal volume is highly dependent upon the structure of the rim. As it stands, Kon does disclose that the tire is capable of being mounted on a rim (see Fig. 2; [0018]; [0029]). Therefore, given that Kon reads on all of the structural limitations of the tire in claim 8, it is clear that the tire of Kon would also be capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed internal volume relationship is realized. Furthermore, the claimed specified internal pressure and unloaded state are merely intended use limitations that fail to require further structure to the tire. Thus, as the tire of Kon is capable of being mounted on a specified rim, it is also capable of being inflated to a specified internal pressure and being in an unloaded state. As such, Kon satisfies all of the limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Kon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. As noted above, examiner notes that the claimed volume relationships in claims 21 and 22 are dependent upon the rim to which the claimed tire is mounted. However, since the claims are directed to a tire and not a tire-rim assembly, Kon merely needs to disclose a tire capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed internal volume relationship is realized. Therefore, since Kon does disclose that the tire is capable of being mounted on a rim (see Fig. 2; [0018]; [0029]), it is clear that the tire of Kon would also be capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed internal volume relationships are satisfied.
Regarding claim 23, Kon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. As set forth above, Kon discloses that the tire has an outer diameter OD in a range of 350 mm or more and 500 mm or less ([0034]), reading on the claimed range 200
≤
OD
≤
550.
Regarding claim 24, Kon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Regarding the claimed specified internal pressure, examiner notes that this limitation is merely an intended use limitation that does not require further structure to the claimed tire. Thus, since Kon discloses that the tire is capable of being mounted on a rim and inflated to a specified internal pressure (see Fig. 12; [0018]; [0041]), it is clear that the tire of Katsura would also be capable of satisfying the claimed internal pressure in claim 24.
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.
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.
Claims 8 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rooney et al. (US 5,879,482) (Rooney).
Regarding claim 8, Rooney discloses a tire (title), comprising: a tread portion (12); a pair of bead cores (26); a carcass layer (30) extended across the bead cores (26); and a belt layer (36) disposed on an outer side of the carcass layer (30) in a radial direction (see Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 12-24; Col. 5, line 55-Col. 6, line 12). Rooney further discloses that the tire preferably has an outer diameter OD of less than 26 inches (Col. 2, lines 52-57), or 660.4 mm. This outer diameter OD range encompasses the claimed range of 200
≤
OD
≤
660. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Furthermore, Rooney discloses that the total tire width SW of the tire is in a range of 25% to 50% of the overall diameter (Col. 2, lines 52-57). Thus, Rooney necessarily discloses that the total tire width SW of the tire can be, at maximum, in a range of 165.1 mm (660.4*0.25) to 330.2 mm (660.4*0.50), suggesting the claimed range 100
≤
SW
≤
400. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Rooney to have satisfied the claimed outer diameter OD range and the claimed total tire width SW range based on the encompassing range disclosed by Rooney.
Regarding the claimed internal volume calculated when the tire is mounted on a specified rim, examiner notes that the claims are directed to a tire, not a tire-rim assembly. Thus, the tire of Rooney merely needs to be capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed volume is realized since the internal volume is highly dependent upon the structure of the rim. As it stands, Rooney does disclose that the tire is capable of being mounted on a rim (see Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 37-57). Therefore, given that Rooney suggests all of the structural limitations of the tire in claim 8, it is clear that the tire of Rooney would also be capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed internal volume relationship is realized. Furthermore, the claimed specified internal pressure and unloaded state are merely intended use limitations that fail to require further structure to the tire. Thus, as the tire of Rooney is capable of being mounted on a specified rim, it is also capable of being inflated to a specified internal pressure and being in an unloaded state. As such, Rooney satisfies all of the limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, Rooney discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. As set forth above, Rooney discloses that the tire has, at maximum, a total tire width of 165.1 mm (660.4*0.25) to 330.2 mm (660.4*0.50), overlapping the claimed range 300
≤
SW
≤
400. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Rooney to have satisfied the claimed range based on the overlapping range disclosed by Rooney.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Rooney discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. As noted above, examiner notes that the claimed volume relationships in claims 21 and 22 are dependent upon the rim to which the claimed tire is mounted. However, since the claims are directed to a tire and not a tire-rim assembly, Rooney merely needs to disclose a tire capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed internal volume relationship is realized. Therefore, since Rooney does disclose that the tire is capable of being mounted on a rim (see Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 37-57), it is clear that the tire of Rooney would also be capable of being mounted on a hypothetical rim such that the claimed internal volume relationships are satisfied.
Regarding claim 24, Rooney discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Regarding the claimed specified internal pressure, examiner notes that this limitation is merely an intended use limitation that does not require further structure to the claimed tire. Thus, since Rooney discloses that the tire is capable of being mounted on a rim and inflated to a specified internal pressure (see Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 37-57; Col. 5, lines 25-43), it is clear that the tire of Rooney would also be capable of satisfying the claimed internal pressure in claim 24.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsura (JP H0616020 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Fukumoto (US 2011/0253284) (of record).
Regarding claim 9, Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Katsura fails to explicitly disclose, however, a specific value for the total tensile strength TTcs of the carcass layer (2).
Fukumoto teaches a similar passenger tire (title; [0025]) comprising a carcass layer (6) comprising at least one carcass ply (6A) (see Fig. 1; [0024]-[0027]). Fukumoto further teaches that the carcass ply (6A) is made of PET fiber carcass cords (10), which allow for the tire to have improved weight and strength without increasing the tire production cost ([0007]; [0011]; [0029]; [0030]) Fukumoto specifically teaches that each of the carcass cords (10) in the carcass ply (6A) can have a tensile strength of 148 N, with a cord count of 70 ends per 50 mm (see Ex. 1 in Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carcass layer disclosed by Katsura to have the carcass layer taught by Fukumoto because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the weight and strength of the tire without increasing the tire production cost.
Regarding the total tensile strength TTcs of the carcass layer, the circumferential length of the carcass layer must be known. While modified Katsura does not disclose a circumferential length of the carcass layer (Katsura: 2), it is clear that the circumferential length of the carcass layer (Katsura: 2) is less than the outer circumference of the tire and greater than a circumference of the tire at one-half of the cross-sectional height of the tire (Katsura: see Figs. 1 and 2). Thus, given the above values for the carcass cords (Fukumoto: 10) taught by Fukumoto and the size of the tire disclosed by modified Katsura, the total tensile strength TTcs of the carcass layer (Katsura: 2) can be calculated to be at least between 294,680 N (148*(70/50)*(330.2+175*0.7)*π) and 374,420 N (148*(70/50)*575.2* π), making a relationship TTcs/OD between the total tensile strength TTcs and the outer diameter OD of the tire be between 512.3 (294,680/575.2) and 650.9 (374,420/575.2), suggesting the claimed relationship 300
≤
TTcs/OD
≤
3500. Thus, modified Katsura satisfies all of the limitations in claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, modified Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. Katsura further discloses that the maximum width position of the tire is at approximately one-half of the cross-sectional height of the tire (Katsura: see Figs. 1 and 2), making a diameter SWD at a tire maximum width position of the tire equal to about 452.7 mm (330.2+175*0.7). Furthermore, Fukumoto teaches that that tensile strength of the carcass layer (Fukumoto: 6) is measured at an internal pressure P of 200 kPa (Fukumoto: [0045]). Thus, it is clear that the claimed relationship TTcs
≥
0.02*P*{(OD/2)^2-(SWD/2)^2} for the tire of modified Katsura is TTcs
≥
125,918 (0.02*200*((575.2/2)^2-(452.7/2)^2)). Thus, the total tensile strength TTcs disclosed by modified Katsura of between 294,680 N (148*(70/50)*(330.2+175*0.7)*π) and 374,420 N (148*(70/50)*575.2* π) clearly satisfies the claimed relationship TTcs
≥
125,918. Thus, modified Katsura satisfies all of the limitations in claim 14.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsura (JP H0616020 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Ono (JP 2012176694 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 10, Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Katsura further discloses that a periphery length Ps (K’+H) of a tire side portion (3) as a length along a tire inner surface between an intersection point (P3) and an innermost end portion of a bead portion (4) in a tire radial direction, wherein the intersection point (P3) is between a perpendicular line drain from an end portion of a belt layer (5) in a tire width direction to a carcass layer (2) and a tire inner surface (see Fig. 2; [0012]). Katsura further teaches that this periphery length Ps (K’+H) can have a value of 116 mm (76+40) (see Table 1). Katsura fails to disclose, however, a specific value for the claimed minimum thickness Gs of a tire side portion or a height Hcs of a turned-up portion of the carcass layer (2).
However, these values are known in the art. For instance, Ono teaches a similar passenger tire (title; [0023]) in which a minimum thickness Gs (W) of a tire side portion is between 1.5 mm and 2.6 mm in order to reduce the rolling resistance of the tire ([0021]; see Fig. 1). Ono further teaches that a height Hcs (LTU) in the tire radial direction from a measurement point of a rim diameter in a bead portion (4) to which a rim is fitted to an end portion (6bout) of a turned-up portion (6b) turned up to an outer side in the tire width direction of the bead core (5) in the carcass layer (6) is between 10% and 40% of the cross-sectional height (SH) of the tire in order to reduce rolling resistance while maintaining good handling stability and ride comfort ([0017]; see Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tire disclosed by Katsura to have the minimum thickness Gs and the turned-up height Hcs taught by Ono because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so reduce the rolling resistance of the tire while maintaining good handling stability and ride comfort.
Therefore, since modified Katsura discloses that the tire has a size of 175/70R13 (Katsura: [0016]), which has a cross-sectional height of 122.5 mm (175*0.7), given the above values for the turned-up height Hcs (Ono: LTU) taught by Ono, it is clear that modified Katsura discloses that the turned-up height Hcs is between 12.25 mm (122.5*0.1) and 45 mm (112.5*0.4). Thus, modified Katsura discloses that the lower end of the claimed range (Gs*
H
c
s
)/2.0) is equal to 2.625 ((1.5*
12.25
)/2.0), and the upper end of the claimed range (Gs*
H
c
s
)/0.06) is equal to 290.7 (2.6*
45
)/0.06). Therefore, since modified Katsura discloses that the periphery length Ps (Katsura: K’+H) is equal to 116 mm , it is clear that modified Katsura satisfies the claimed relationship (Gs*
H
c
s
)/2.0)
≤
Ps
≤
(Gs*
H
c
s
)/0.06). Thus, modified Katsura satisfies all of the limitations in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 10. As set forth above, modified Katsura discloses that the tire has an outer diameter OD of 575.2 mm, making the claimed range (70/
O
D
)
≤
Gs
≤
(450/
O
D
) be equal to 2.91
≤
Gs
≤
18.76. As set forth above, modified Katsura discloses that the minimum thickness Gs (Ono: W) of the tire side portion is between 1.5 mm and 2.6 mm (Ono: [0021]), which is substantially close to the claimed range of 2.91
≤
Gs
≤
18.76. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range does not overlap with the prior art but is merely close. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Katsura to have satisfied the claimed range based on the substantially close range disclosed by modified Katsura.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsura (JP H0616020 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Kamata et al. (US 5,798,416) (Kamata) (of record).
Regarding claim 12, Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Katsura further discloses that a periphery length Pt (2*(K-K’-H)) of a tread portion (1) as a length along a tire inner surface between respective intersection points (P3) between perpendicular lines drawn from respective end portions on both sides of a belt layer (5) in a tire width direction to a carcass layer (2) and the tire inner surface (see Fig. 2; [0012]). Katsura further teaches that this periphery length Pt (2*(K-K’-H)) can have a value of 128 mm (2*(180-76-40)) (see Table 1). Katsura fails to disclose, however, a specific value for the claimed minimum thickness Gt of the tread (1).
Kamata teaches a similar tire with the same size of 175/70R13 (Col. 9, lines 19-42; see Fig. 3) as the tire disclosed by Katsura. Kamata further teaches that a minimum thickness (A) of a tread portion (93) is equal to 13.5 mm (Col. 9, lines 19-42; see Table 3; see also Fig. 3). Kamata further teaches that configuring the thickness (A) of the tread (93) in this way helps the tire to become more light-weight, leading to lower rolling resistance (Col. 9, lines 19-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the minimum thickness of the tread disclosed by Katsura to have the minimum thickness taught by Kamata because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help the tire to become more light-weight and to have lower rolling resistance.
Thus, given all of the above values, it is clear that the lower end of the claimed range {(Gt*L)/1.0} for the periphery length Pt for modified Katsura is equal to 27 ((13.5*2)/1.0), and the upper end of the claimed range {(Gt*L)/0.11} is equal to 245.5 ((13.5*2)/0.11). Thus, since modified Katsura discloses that the periphery length Pt (Katsura: 2*(K-K’-H)) is equal to 128 mm, it is clear that modified Katsura satisfies the claimed relationship {(Gt*L)/1.0}
≤
Pt
≤
{(Gt*L)/0.11}. Thus, modified Katsura satisfies all of the limitations in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, modified Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 12. As set forth above, modified Katsura discloses that the tire has a size of 175/70R13 (Katsura: [0016]), which has a total width SW of 175 mm. Thus, the lower end of the claimed range {22/(SW)^(1/4)} for the minimum thickness Gt of the tread portion is equal to 6.05 (22/(175)^(1/4)), and the upper end of the claimed range {22/(SW)^(1/4)} is equal to 35.7 (130/(175)^(1/4)). Therefore, since modified Katsura discloses that the minimum thickness Gt (Kamata: A) of the tread portion (Katsura: 1) is equal to 13.5 mm (Kamata: Col. 9, lines 19-42; see Table 3; see also Fig. 3), it is clear that modified Katsura satisfies the claimed relationship {22/(SW)^(1/4)}
≤
Gt
≤
{130/(SW)^(1/4)}. Thus, modified Katsura satisfies all of the limitations in claim 13.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsura (JP H0616020 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Fukumoto (US 2011/0253284) (of record) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ono (JP 2012176694 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, modified Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. Modified Katsura in view of Ono further satisfies all of the limitations in claims 15 and 16 as set forth above for claims 10 and 11, which have the same subject matter as claims 15 and 16, respectively.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsura (JP H0616020 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Fukumoto (US 2011/0253284) (of record) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ono (JP 2012176694 with English Machine Translation) (of record) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kamata et al. (US 5,798,416) (Kamata) (of record).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, modified Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 16. Modified Katsura in view of Kamata further discloses all of the limitations in claims 17 and 18 as set forth above for claims 12 and 13, which have the same subject matter as claims 17 and 18, respectively.
Regarding claim 19, modified Katsura discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 18. Modified Katsura further satisfies all of the limitations in claim 19 as set forth above for claim 14, which has the same subject matter as claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claim 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As such, claims 8-24 stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/JUSTIN R FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights