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 Objections
1. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “cross sectional” should be --cross-sectional--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
3. Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the specification does not clearly and explicitly disclose that the extension handle attachment end cross-sectional size and shape substantially the same as the hatchet handle attachment end cross-sectional size and shape. The specification does not explicitly disclose that the size and the shape of the cross-section of the extension handle attachment end is the same as the hatchet handle attachment end.
4. Claims 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, “A two-piece axe … thereby to form an axe” is confusing as it is not clear whether the formed axe is the same as the two-piece axe or is a different axe.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Palumbo (3,845,798). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Palumbo teaches a two-piece axe, comprising: a first piece (10, 11) comprising an axe head 10 and a hatchet handle 11 attached to the axe head and extending from the axe head to a hatchet handle attachment end (where the threaded section 19 is located; Fig. 1) spaced from the axe head 10, said axe head and attached hatchet handle forming a hatchet, and said hatchet handle attachment end having a hatchet handle attachment end cross-sectional size and shape (as being round and having a predetermined diameter or size) and hatchet handle attachment end coupler (14, 19); and a second piece 12 comprising an extension handle with an extension handle attachment end cross sectional size shape substantially the same as the hatchet handle attachment end cross sectional size and shape, and an extension handle attachment end coupler (20-21) configured to mate with the hatchet handle attachment end coupler (14, 19) to attach the extension handle to the hatchet handle 11 and thereby form a longer handle (Fig. 1) attached to the axe head to thereby form an axe. See Figs. 1-3 in Palumbo.
It is noted that the cross-sectional size and shape of the extension handle attachment end are the same as the those of the hatchet handle attachment end , as clearly illustrated in Fig. 1 of Palumbo. Although, the handle 11 is shorter than the extension handle of the second piece, the hatchet handle 11 is still capable of being gripped by a user during use of either the hatchet alone or the assembled two-piece axe. Furthermore, claim 1 does not recite or require that the length of the hatchet handle be the same or substantially the same as the length of the extension handle.
Regarding claim 14, Palumbo teaches everything noted above including that the axe head includes a bit having a double bevel (Fig. 1).
7. Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoeldtke (2,738,815). Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Hoeldke teaches a two-piece axe, comprising: a first piece (11, 15) comprising an axe head 11 and a hatchet handle 15 attached to the axe head and extending from the axe head to a hatchet handle attachment end (where the opening 13 19 is located; Fig. 2) spaced from the axe head 11, said axe head and attached hatchet handle forming a hatchet, and said hatchet handle attachment end having a hatchet handle attachment end cross-sectional size and shape (as being round and having a predetermined diameter or size) and hatchet handle attachment end coupler 13 (defined as the opening); and a second piece 15 comprising an extension handle with an extension handle attachment end cross sectional size shape substantially the same as the hatchet handle attachment end cross sectional size and shape, and an extension handle attachment end coupler 27 configured to mate with the hatchet handle attachment end coupler 13 to attach the extension handle to the hatchet handle 15 and thereby form a longer handle (Fig. 2) attached to the axe head to thereby form an axe. See Figs. 1-4 in Hoeldtke.
Regarding claim 14, Hoeldtke teaches everything noted above including that the axe head includes a bit having a double bevel (Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palumbo in view of Coulonvaux et al. (6,022,055), hereinafter Coulonvaux. Regarding claim 2, Palumbo teaches the features discussed above, including that the hatchet handle attachment end coupler (14, 16) comprises a receiving opening (14) in the attachment end of the hatchet handle (11). Palumbo further teaches that the extension handle attachment end coupler includes a tapered plug (e.g., the tapered tip of section 21 or the tapered portion of threaded section 20; see Fig. 23) extending from the extension handle attachment end and configured to fit into the receiving opening (14) of the hatchet handle.
However, Palumbo does not explicitly teach that the hatchet handle attachment end coupler includes a latch component, nor that the extension handle attachment end coupler includes a corresponding latch component configured to cooperate therewith to latch the extension handle to the hatchet handle. Coulonvaux, on the other hand, teaches a two-piece handle or housing arrangement (sections 14, 15), wherein a first handle or housing section (14) includes an attachment end coupler having a latch component (17), and a second handle or housing section (15) includes a corresponding latch component (35a) configured to cooperate with latch component (17) to secure the two sections together. See Figs. 1–20 of Coulonvaux. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the handle coupling arrangement of Palumbo to include the latch components taught by Coulonvaux in order to provide an additional securing mechanism and thereby enhance the secure attachment between the handles.
Regarding claim 3, Palumbo in view of Coulonvaux teaches everything noted above including that the hatchet handle attachment end latch component is a pair of clip latches (35a) and the extension handle attachment end latch component is a pair of spring clips 17 rotatively attached to the extension handle near the extension handle attachment end to be rotated to extend beyond the extension handle attachment end and to be rotated to engage the clip latches (35a) on the hatchet handle attachment end to secure the hatchet handle and the extension handle together or to be rotated to disengage the clip latches to allow the hatchet handle and the extension handle to be separated.
Regarding claim 4, Palumbo in view of Coulonvaux teaches everything noted above except that the hatchet handle and the extension handle are molded of a long fiber reinforced thermoplastic material. However, the process of making the apparatus (the handles of the apparatus) has nothing to do with patentability of the apparatus itself. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the handles from long fiber reinforced thermoplastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, Palumbo in view of Coulonvaux teaches everything noted above including that the extension handle has an outer surface and recesses (defined by the recesses of the latch mount 20 which receives the latches 17; Figs. 2 and 20 in Conlonvaux) are molded into the extension handle outer surface to provide room for the spring clips to be rotatively attached to the extension handle without extending beyond the outer surface of the extension handle when in locked position. It should be noted again that process of molding the recesses has nothing to do with the patentability of the apparatus itself.
Regarding claim 6, Palumbo in view of Coulonvaux teaches everything noted above including that the extension handle and the clips are configured to position ends of the clips beyond the outer surface of the extension handle when not positioned in locked position over the clip latches on the hatchet handle.
Regarding claim 7, Palumbo in view of Coulonvaux teaches everything noted above including that the hatchet handle has an outer surface and recesses 24 are molded into the hatchet handle outer surface around the clip latches (35a) on the hatchet handle to provide room for the spring clips when rotated over the clip latches into latching position to be secured to the clip latches without extending beyond the outer surface of the hatchet handle. It should be noted again that process of molding the recesses has nothing to do with the patentability of the apparatus itself.
10. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palumbo in view of Coulonvaux and in further view of Provi (4,352,381). Regarding claim 8, Palumbo does not explicitly teach that the hatchet handle is over-molded over the axe head. However, Provi teaches a hatch handle (12, 18) is over-molded (define by section 18 of the handle) over an axe head 10. See Figs. 1-5 in Provi.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Palumbo’s axe, as modified by Coylonvaux, with the over-molded portion in order to ensure tied attachment of the handle to the axe handle.
Regarding claim 9, Palumbo in view of Provi teaches everything noted above including that the axe head 10 includes an opening through the axe head in a location where the over molded hatchet handle covers the axe head 10 so that hatchet handle material extends into and through the opening to further attach the handle to the axe head. See Figs. 1-5 in Provi.
11. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palumbo in view of Coulonvaux and Provi in and in further view of Tarran (4,287,623) or Hillinger (4,465,113). Regarding claim 10, it could be argued that Palumbo does not explicitly teach that the axe head includes a bit having a double bevel. However, Tarran teaches an axe head 18 includes a bit having a double bevel (defined by the sides of the cutting edge 54 and also sides 56, 58 of portion 52; Fig. 5). Hillinger also teaches an axe head 10 includes a bit having a double bevel (defined by the sides of the cutting edge 20 and also sides with includes rollers 126; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide axe head of Palumbo’s axe, as modified above, with the double bevel, as taught by Tarran or Hillinger, in order to enhance penetration of the axe head into a workpiece or a material to be cut.
Regarding claim 11, Palumbo, as modified by Tarran or Hillinger, teaches everything noted above including that the double bevel includes a first bevel forming a cutting edge (54, Fig. 1 in Tarran; and 20, Fig, 1 in Hillinger) and along a bit edge of the axe head and a second bevel forming a flat transition surface from the first bevel to opposite cheeks (defined by the tapered sections connected to the end of the sides surfaces 56, 58, Fig. 5 in Tarran; and defined by the sides which includes cut outs 120, 122, Fig. 5 in Hillinger ) of the axe head and wherein the second bevel forms a flat splitting surface.
Regarding claim 12, Palumbo, as modified by Hillinger, teaches everything noted above including that the axe head includes a toe and heel, and wherein the cheeks include beveled cutouts 120, 122 (Fig. 5 in Hillinger) near the toe and heel of the axe head.
Regarding claim 13, Palumbo teaches everything noted above, but Palumbo does not explicitly teach that the axe head has a weight and the weight of the axe head is about 1.5 pounds. However, Official Notice that the use of an axe head having different size and weight including a weight of about 1.5 pounds is old and well known in the art.
12. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palumbo in view Tarran or Hillinger. Regarding claim 14, it could be argued that Palumbo does not explicitly teach that the axe head includes a bit having a double bevel. However, Tarran teaches an axe head 18 includes a bit having a double bevel (defined by the sides of the cutting edge 54 and also sides 56, 58 of portion 52; Fig. 5). Hillinger also teaches an axe head 10 includes a bit having a double bevel (defined by the sides of the cutting edge 20 and also sides with includes rollers 126; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide axe head of Palumbo’s axe, as modified above, with the double bevel, as taught by Tarran or Hillinger, in order to enhance penetration of the axe head into a workpiece or a material to be cut.
Regarding claim 15, Palumbo, as modified by Tarran or Hillinger, teaches everything noted above including that the double bevel includes a first bevel forming a cutting edge (54, Fig. 1 in Tarran; and 20, Fig, 1 in Hillinger) and along a bit edge of the axe head and a second bevel forming a flat transition surface from the first bevel to opposite cheeks (defined by the tapered sections connected to the end of the sides surfaces 56, 58, Fig. 5 in Tarran; and defined by the sides which includes cut outs 120, 122, Fig. 5 in Hillinger ) of the axe head and wherein the second bevel forms a flat splitting surface.
13. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palumbo. Regarding claim 16, Palumbo teaches everything noted above, but Palumbo does not explicitly teach that the axe head has a weight and the weight of the axe head is about 1.5 pounds. However, Official Notice that the use of an axe head having different size and weight including a weight of about 1.5 pounds is old and well known in the art.
14. Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeldtke in view of Coulonvaux. Regarding claim 2, Hoeldke teaches the features discussed above, including that the hatchet handle attachment end coupler 13 comprises a receiving opening in the attachment end of the hatchet handle. Hoeldke further teaches that the extension handle attachment end coupler includes a tapered plug (e.g., the tapered bottom section of the handle 20) extending from the extension handle attachment end and configured to fit into the receiving opening of the hatchet handle.
However, Hoeldke does not explicitly teach that the hatchet handle attachment end coupler includes a latch component, nor that the extension handle attachment end coupler includes a corresponding latch component configured to cooperate therewith to latch the extension handle to the hatchet handle. Coulonvaux, on the other hand, teaches a two-piece handle or housing arrangement (sections 14, 15), wherein a first handle or housing section (14) includes an attachment end coupler having a latch component (17), and a second handle or housing section (15) includes a corresponding latch component (35a) configured to cooperate with latch component (17) to secure the two sections together. See Figs. 1–20 of Coulonvaux. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the handle coupling arrangement of Hoeldke to include the latch components taught by Coulonvaux in order to provide an additional securing mechanism and thereby enhance the secure attachment between the handles.
Regarding claim 3, Hoeldke in view of Coulonvaux teaches everything noted above including that the hatchet handle attachment end latch component is a pair of clip latches (35a) and the extension handle attachment end latch component is a pair of spring clips 17 rotatively attached to the extension handle near the extension handle attachment end to be rotated to extend beyond the extension handle attachment end and to be rotated to engage the clip latches (35a) on the hatchet handle attachment end to secure the hatchet handle and the extension handle together or to be rotated to disengage the clip latches to allow the hatchet handle and the extension handle to be separated.
Regarding claim 4, Hoeldke in view of Coulonvaux teaches everything noted above except that the hatchet handle and the extension handle are molded of a long fiber reinforced thermoplastic material. However, the process of making the apparatus (the handles of the apparatus) has nothing to do with patentability of the apparatus itself. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the handles from long fiber reinforced thermoplastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 5, Hoeldke in view of Coulonvaux teaches everything noted above including that the extension handle has an outer surface and recesses (defined by the recesses of the latch mount 20 which receives the latches 17; Figs. 2 and 20 in Conlonvaux) are molded into the extension handle outer surface to provide room for the spring clips to be rotatively attached to the extension handle without extending beyond the outer surface of the extension handle when in locked position. It should be noted again that process of molding the recesses has nothing to do with the patentability of the apparatus itself.
Regarding claim 6, Hoeldke in view of Coulonvaux teaches everything noted above including that the extension handle and the clips are configured to position ends of the clips beyond the outer surface of the extension handle when not positioned in locked position over the clip latches on the hatchet handle.
Regarding claim 7, Hoeldke in view of Coulonvaux teaches everything noted above including that the hatchet handle has an outer surface and recesses 24 are molded into the hatchet handle outer surface around the clip latches (35a) on the hatchet handle to provide room for the spring clips when rotated over the clip latches into latching position to be secured to the clip latches without extending beyond the outer surface of the hatchet handle. It should be noted again that process of molding the recesses has nothing to do with the patentability of the apparatus itself.
15. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeldke in view of Coulonvaux and in further view of Provi. Regarding claim 8, Hoeldke does not explicitly teach that the hatchet handle is over-molded over the axe head. However, Provi teaches a hatch handle (12, 18) is over-molded (define by section 18 of the handle) over an axe head 10. See Figs. 1-5 in Provi.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Hoeldke’s axe, as modified by Coylonvaux, with the over-molded portion in order to ensure tied attachment of the handle to the axe handle.
Regarding claim 9, Hoeldke in view of Provi teaches everything noted above including that the axe head 10 includes an opening through the axe head in a location where the over molded hatchet handle covers the axe head 10 so that hatchet handle material extends into and through the opening to further attach the handle to the axe head. See Figs. 1-5 in Provi.
16. Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeldke in view of Coulonvaux and Provi and in further view of Tarran or Hillinger. Regarding claim 10, it could be argued that Hoeldke does not explicitly teach that the axe head includes a bit having a double bevel. However, Tarran teaches an axe head 18 includes a bit having a double bevel (defined by the sides of the cutting edge 54 and also sides 56, 58 of portion 52; Fig. 5). Hillinger also teaches an axe head 10 includes a bit having a double bevel (defined by the sides of the cutting edge 20 and also sides with includes rollers 126; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide axe head of Hoeldke’s axe, as modified above, with the double bevel, as taught by Tarran or Hillinger, in order to enhance penetration of the axe head into a workpiece or a material to be cut.
Regarding claim 11, Hoeldke, as modified by Tarran or Hillinger, teaches everything noted above including that the double bevel includes a first bevel forming a cutting edge (54, Fig. 1 in Tarran; and 20, Fig, 1 in Hillinger) and along a bit edge of the axe head and a second bevel forming a flat transition surface from the first bevel to opposite cheeks (defined by the tapered sections connected to the end of the sides surfaces 56, 58, Fig. 5 in Tarran; and defined by the sides which includes cut outs 120, 122, Fig. 5 in Hillinger ) of the axe head and wherein the second bevel forms a flat splitting surface.
Regarding claim 12, Hoeldke, as modified by Hillinger, teaches everything noted above including that the axe head includes a toe and heel, and wherein the cheeks include beveled cutouts 120, 122 (Fig. 5 in Hillinger) near the toe and heel of the axe head.
Regarding claim 13, Hoeldke teaches everything noted above, but Hoeldke does not explicitly teach that the axe head has a weight and the weight of the axe head is about 1.5 pounds. However, Official Notice that the use of an axe head having different size and weight including a weight of about 1.5 pounds is old and well known in the art.
17. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeldke in view Tarran or Hillinger. Regarding claim 14, it could be argued that Hoeldke does not explicitly teach that the axe head includes a bit having a double bevel. However, Tarran teaches an axe head 18 includes a bit having a double bevel (defined by the sides of the cutting edge 54 and also sides 56, 58 of portion 52; Fig. 5). Hillinger also teaches an axe head 10 includes a bit having a double bevel (defined by the sides of the cutting edge 20 and also sides with includes rollers 126; Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide axe head of Hoeldke’s axe, as modified above, with the double bevel, as taught by Tarran or Hillinger, in order to enhance penetration of the axe head into a workpiece or a material to be cut.
Regarding claim 15, Hoeldke, as modified by Tarran or Hillinger, teaches everything noted above including that the double bevel includes a first bevel forming a cutting edge (54, Fig. 1 in Tarran; and 20, Fig, 1 in Hillinger) and along a bit edge of the axe head and a second bevel forming a flat transition surface from the first bevel to opposite cheeks (defined by the tapered sections connected to the end of the sides surfaces 56, 58, Fig. 5 in Tarran; and defined by the sides which includes cut outs 120, 122, Fig. 5 in Hillinger ) of the axe head and wherein the second bevel forms a flat splitting surface.
18. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoeldke. Regarding claim 16, Hoeldke teaches everything noted above, but Hoeldke does not explicitly teach that the axe head has a weight and the weight of the axe head is about 1.5 pounds. However, Official Notice that the use of an axe head having different size and weight including a weight of about 1.5 pounds is old and well known in the art.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicant’s argument that Palumbo does not teach a two-piece axe, and instead discloses only a single handle without an extension handle, is not persuasive. As discussed above, Palumbo teaches a configuration in which the cross-sectional size and shape of the extension handle attachment end are the same as those of the hatchet handle attachment end, as clearly illustrated in Fig. 1. Although the hatchet handle (11) is shorter than the extension handle of the second piece, the hatchet handle is nevertheless capable of being gripped by a user during use of either the hatchet alone or the assembled two-piece axe. Furthermore, claim 1 does not recite or require that the length of the hatchet handle be the same as, or substantially the same as, the length of the extension handle. In other words, the claim does not distinguish over Palumbo based on any particular length requirement of the hatchet handle, nor does it impose any limitation regarding relative handle lengths that would exclude the structure disclosed by Palumbo.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Clarke (9,815,216 B1) teaches a two-piece axe.
Hartman et al. (2022/0356973 A1) teach a latching mechanism for connecting two handles together.
21. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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, Boyer Ashely can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
March 19, 2026