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 .
Objection to Specification
The amendment filed 01/31/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
New paragraphs [0017.1], [0017.2], [0024.1], [0024.2] in page 2, lines 2-3, and lines 5-10, Fig 8, Fig 9, a revised list of components in pages 13-14.
MPEP 608.04(a) recites in part “Matter not present on the filing date of the application in the specification, claims, or drawings that is added after the application filing is usually new matter.”
Upon careful review, as best understood by Examiner, no statement is found in the remarks submitted by applicant dated 01/31/2026 for supporting the position that the newly amended subject matter (paragraphs [0017.1], [0017.2], [0024.1], [0024.2] in page 2, lines 2-3, lines 5-10, new Fig 8, new Fig 9, and a list of components in pages 13-14) is/are described in the specification as originally filed. As a result, there remains substantial unresolved questions which raise a doubt as to the possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing, because the subject matter of new Figs 8 and 9 appears to be totally new, in comparison to the original Figs 1-7 submitted on 04/01/2024, and the subject matter of new paragraphs [0017.1], [0017.2], [0024.1], [0024.2] are not expressly nor inherently supported by original specification submitted on 04/01/2024, and list of components in pages 13-14 also appear new. Meanwhile, referring to original Figs 3 and 4 and 6 and specification, newly added structural features identified as being a mounting surface 201, a cap screw bore 204, and coaxial receiver bores 203, and an alignment key 202 for engaging with strut channel, respectively, as best understood by examiner upon careful review, all appear to be newly introduced limitations that are not supported by original disclosure. Meanwhile, Fig 9 appears to show a new alternate embodiment for a bracket, that is different from any embodiment(s) for bracket as originally presented.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claim(s) 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement based on the following reasons:
(a) Claimed limitation “mounting surface” in lines 3-4 of claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement, based on the following: upon diligent search of entire disclosure including all figures, “mounting surface” is not found to be expressly defined. Based on the structure of bracket 111 shown by Figs 3-4, alongside support of specification of instant disclosure as a whole, it remains unknown as to which specific area/part of the bracket would form the “mounting surface” with respect to the strut channel 122. In other words, it is not evident from original disclosure as to which portion of the curled ends of the strut channel would be directly touching which certain parts/sections of the bracket 111 so as to be fully mounted by the bracket.
(b) Claimed limitation “receiver “in lines 5-8 of claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement: Figs 1-4 (with embodiment having the pair of tabs for the bracket 111) discloses a cylinder 112. However, according to specification in [0018]-[0020] which also discloses a cylinder 112, and a nut 118, but not any receiver. Therefore, it remains unknown of the relationship between a cylinder 112 discussed in specification, and the receiver as claimed in claim 1. Furthermore, it also remains unknown of the relationship between a nut 118 disclosed in specification, and the receiver as claimed in claim 1. Notice that the alternative embodiment shown in Fig 6 has a bracket 111 with only one tab, instead of two tabs, and is structurally different from the bracket 111 of embodiment shown by Figs 1-4.
(c) Claimed limitation “a pair of threaded rods, each engaged at its proximal end with a respective said receiver” recited in lines 8-9 of claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because it is unknown as to if threaded rod 117 is engaged at its proximal end with nut 118, and/or the cylinder 112, or something else as being receiver.
(d) Claimed limitation “wherein a respective support shoe rigidly couples to the distal end of a respective rod” recited in Claim 1 lines 11-12 fails to comply with the written description requirement because “rigidly couples” is not defined or supported in the original disclosure. Meanwhile, according to [0018] of specification, it requires the presence of a nut 118 to be tightened against a cylinder 112 and a support shoe 119 to achieve “rigidly fix” for the embodiment with a support shoe 119, but it remains unknown as to what structure enables “wherein a respective support shoe rigidly couples to the distal end of a respective rod”.
(e) Claimed limitation “a circumferential clamping mechanism” in last 2 lines of claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement because specification in [0019] recites a hose clamp 121, but there is no express disclosure describing the relationship of the hose clamp 121 in the specification, and the circumferential clamping mechanism as claimed in claim 1.
By virtue of dependency upon rejected base claim 1, dependent claims 2-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 8 fails to comply with the written description requirement based on the following reasons:
(a) Claimed limitation “mounting surface” in lines 3-4: in claim 8 fails to comply with the written description requirement. Based on the structure of bracket 111 shown by Figs 3-4, alongside support of specification as a whole, it remains unknown which specific area/part of the bracket forms the “mounting surface” with respect to the strut channel 122. For example, it is not known which portion of the curled ends of the strut channel remain fully directly touching which certain parts/sections of the bracket 111, so as to mount the bracket to the strut channel.
(b) Claimed limitation “a pair of receivers” in Claim 8: lines 5-8 fails to comply with the written description requirement based on the following: Figs 1-4 (with embodiment having the pair of tabs for the bracket 111) only discloses a cylinder 112. However, according to specification in [0018]-[0020] also only discloses a cylinder 112, and a nut 118, but not any receiver. Therefore, the relationship between a cylinder 112 and the receiver as claimed remains unknown. Furthermore, it remains known of relationship between a nut 118 as disclosed, and the receiver as claimed in claim 8. Notice that the alternative embodiment for Fig 6 has a bracket 111 with only one tab, instead of two tabs, and is structurally different from the bracket 111 of embodiment shown by Figs 1-4.
(c) Claimed limitation “a pair of threaded rods, each engaged at its proximal end with a respective said receiver” recited in lines 8-9 of claim 8 fails to comply with the written description requirement because it is unknown if threaded rod 117 is engaged at its proximal end with nut 118, and/or the cylinder 112, or something else defined as being receiver.
(d) Claimed limitation “wherein a respective hanger shoe rigidly couples to the distal end of a respective rod” recited in Claim 8 lines 11-12 fails to comply with the written description requirement because “rigidly couples” is not defined or supported in the original disclosure between the hanger shoe and the rod. Meanwhile, according to [0019] of specification, it requires the presence of a nut 118 to be tightened against a cylinder 112 and a hanger shoe 120 so as to achieve “rigidly fix” for the embodiment with a hanger shoe 120, but it remains unknown as to what structure reads on “wherein a respective hanger shoe rigidly couples to the distal end of a respective rod” based on support of original disclosure.
(e) Claimed limitation “a circumferential clamping mechanism” in last 2 lines of claim 8 fails to comply with the written description requirement because specification in [0019] recites a hose clamp 121, but there is no express disclosure describing the relationship of the hose clamp 121 in disclosure, and the circumferential clamping mechanism of claim 8.
By virtue of dependency upon rejected base claim 8, dependent claims 9-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 15 fails to comply with the written description requirement based on the following reasons:
Claimed limitation “a pair of combination support and hanger shoes” in line 10 fails to comply with the written description requirement because it remains unclear/unknown if “combination shoe 124” for embodiment discussed in [0023] and shown by Fig 6 (according to original disclosure) is the same as “combination support and hanger shoes” as claimed in claim 15. Meanwhile, because support shoe 119 (see Figs 1 and 3) and a hanger shoe 120 (Figs 2 and 4) are structural different and distinct, and Fig 6 alone is insufficient to show the entirety of the overall structure of the combination shoe 124 required from different views, thus it remains unknown as to what a combined support and hanger shoe would be structurally.
Claimed limitation “a circumferential clamping mechanism” in last 2 lines of claim 15 fails to comply with the written description requirement because specification in [0023] recites a pipe clamp 121, but there is no express disclosure describing the relationship of the pipe clamp 121 and the circumferential clamping mechanism of claim 15.
By virtue of dependency upon rejected base claim 15, dependent claims 16-21 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/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.
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.
Regarding Claim 5 in lines 2-3, claim 12 in line 2, and claim 19 in lines 2-3, which recites the limitation: “circumferential clamping mechanism comprises a hose clamp”.
Upon diligent search of entire disclosure, no express or inherent description is found to support “circumferential clamping mechanism comprises a hose clamp”. Specification in [0019] recites a hose clamp 121, but there is no express disclosure describing the relationship of a hose clamp 121 and circumferential clamping mechanism of claims 5, 12 and 19, respectively.
Under MPEP § 2111 and the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard, claim terms are given their ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time of invention. While intrinsic evidence (claims, specification, prosecution history) is primary, external evidence (dictionaries, expert testimony) may be used to interpret terms, provided it is not inconsistent with the specification.
Thus, using external evidence such as google image search for “circumferential clamping mechanism” reproduced herein below:
PNG
media_image1.png
673
1428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As best understood by Examiner, the above searched image results for ““circumferential clamping mechanism” from google image search appear to be inconsistent with the specification (i.e. hose clamp).
As a result, claims 5, 12 and 19 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DIPA pipe clamp type 114B-MB with pendulum hanger product data sheet dated August 2017, (hereinafter referred to as “DIPA”).
Regarding claim 1, DIPA discloses a mechanism for the support of a round tubular member (see annotated figure A below and drawing in page 1 are showing a pipe being supported by DIPA model 114-B-MB pipe clamp with pair of pendulum hangers type 508 alongside pair of threaded rods M16), the mechanism comprising: a pair of brackets (see annotated figure A below), each having a mounting surface and at least one tab angled from said mounting surface (see annotated figure A below); a pair of receivers (see annotated figure A below) each pivotally mounted to said tab of a respective said mounting bracket (see annotated figure A below) and wherein each said receiver is provisioned to engage a threaded rod (see annotated figure A below); a pair of threaded rods (see annotated figure A below), each engaged at its proximal end with a respective said receiver (see annotated figure A below); a pair of support shoes provisioned to cradle said round tubular member and engage said threaded rods (note: see annotated figure A below, shoe is interpreted as being a support shoe for supporting a pipe); and wherein a respective support shoe rigidly couples to the distal end of a respective rod (see annotated figure A below, note that the support shoe is able to rigidly couple to the end of threaded rod via tightening down of the three nuts at the ends) and a circumferential clamping mechanism for the binding of said support shoes to said tubular member (see annotated figure A below, note: “for the binding of said support shoes to said tubular member” is hereby interpreted as functional language feature, but without providing structural limitation).
Annotated Figure A taken from DIPA
PNG
media_image2.png
811
1187
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, DIPA discloses wherein said brackets are configured to engage and secure to universal strut channel (see annotated figure A above; note: DIPA type 508 pendulum hanger for the pipe support mechanism is known for being capable to mount to universal strut channel for beam connections for ceilings depending upon specific usage requirements).
Regarding claim 8, DIPA discloses a mechanism for the suspension of a round tubular member (see annotated figure A below and drawing in page 1 are showing a pipe being suspended by DIPA model 114-B-MB pipe clamp with pair of pendulum hangers type 508 alongside pair of threaded rods M16), the mechanism comprising: a pair of brackets (see annotated figure A below), each having a mounting surface and at least one tab angled from said mounting surface (see annotated figure A below); a pair of receivers (see annotated figure A below) each pivotally mounted to said tab of a respective said mounting bracket (see annotated figure A below) and wherein each said receiver is provisioned to engage a threaded rod (see annotated figure A below); a pair of threaded rods (see annotated figure A below), each engaged at its proximal end with a respective said receiver (see annotated figure A below); a pair of hanger shoes provisioned to cradle said round tubular member and engage said threaded rods (note: see annotated figure A below, shoe is interpreted as being a hanger shoe for cradle a pipe); and wherein a respective hanger shoe rigidly couples to the distal end of a respective rod (see annotated figure A below, note that the hanger shoe is able to rigidly couple to the end of threaded rod via tightening down of the three nuts at the ends) and a circumferential clamping mechanism for the binding of said hanger shoes to said tubular member (see annotated figure A below, note: “for the binding of said hanger shoes to said tubular member” is hereby interpreted as functional language feature, but without providing structural limitation).
Annotated Figure A taken from DIPA
PNG
media_image2.png
811
1187
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, DIPA discloses wherein said brackets are configured to engage and secure to universal strut channel (see annotated figure A above; note: DIPA type 508 pendulum hanger for the pipe support mechanism is known for being capable to mount to universal strut channel for beam connections for ceilings depending upon specific usage requirements).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6-7, 10, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIPA pipe clamp type 114B-MB with pendulum hanger product data sheet dated 08/2017, (hereinafter referred to as “DIPA”) in view of Jong Wook Hwang (US10935164B2, hereinafter referred to as “Hwang”).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, DIPA fails to disclose wherein said pivotally mounted receivers are cylindrical and cross bored to engage said threaded rod.
However, Hwang teaches wherein said pivotally mounted receivers are cylindrical and cross bored to engage said threaded rod (Figs 1, 8 and 10, upper fixing member 12 is cylindrical and cross bored to engage thread rod 11; alternatively, Fig 14 shows another upper fixing member 12 being cylindrical, cross bored and engage threaded rod at 19a; and alternatively, Fig 22 shows socket type nut 61 that is cylindrical, cross bored and engage threaded rod 62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine DIPA by Hwang based on the rationales as follow: referring to drawing in page 1 of DIPA and annotated figure A above, the mounting of the two threaded rod to wall structure has a fixed angle with respect to both the shoes and pipe. In addition, referring to DIPA, mounting angle appears to be relatively large due to the coupling positions at the shoes. On the other hand, the angles of mounting of the two threaded rods 11 appear to be very flexible and adaptable as shown in Figs 2 and 8 and 15 and 23 and 25, due to the pivoting mounting capability at both ends of threaded rod at shoe and receiver, respectively. In addition, the angles of mounting of the two threaded rods 11 of Hwang can be much narrower as shown by Figs 3 and 20 based on actual usage requirements in the field. As a result, above discussed advantages of Hwang over DIPA serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify DIPA by Hwang, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both DIPA and Hwang belong as analogous art in the field of pipe support hanger with threaded rods and clamp.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, DIPA fails to disclose wherein said brackets are configured to be fastened to a substrate with screws or bolts.
However, Hwang teaches wherein said brackets are configured to be fastened to a substrate with screws or bolts (Figs 2 and 8, bracket 13 fastened to substrate 300 via bolts, see also Fig 11 for details, anchor bolt 132 fixing the bracket 13).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, DIPA fails to disclose wherein said pivotally mounted receivers are clevis rod ends.
However, Hwang teaches wherein said pivotally mounted receivers are clevis rod ends (Figs 23 and 26A, clevis rod end at end of 3 of threaded rod).
Regarding claims 6-7, 10, 13-14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine DIPA by Hwang based on same rationale previously discussed for claim 3 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIPA pipe clamp type 114B-MB with pendulum hanger product data sheet dated 08/2017, (hereinafter referred to as “DIPA”) in view of Zhoa Xia (CN 206770792U, hereinafter referred to as “Zhoa Xia”).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, DIPA fails to disclose wherein said circumferential clamping mechanism comprises a hose clamp.
However, Zhoa Xia teaches wherein said circumferential clamping mechanism comprises a hose clamp (Figs 1 and 3, and abstract English translation lines 7-8: upper part forms a hose clamp).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine DIPA by Zhao Xia based on the rationales as follow: referring to drawing in page 1 of DIPA and annotated figure A above, the diameters of both the shoes and circumferential clamping mechanism are fixed, thus allowing only pipe having just one specific diameter for mounting. On the other hand, referring to Zhao Xia in abstract english translation copy lines 7-9 of Zhoa Xia, upper part forms a hose clamp, which can adjust pipe diameter size at any time, flexibly installation, and also can adjusting screw length at any time, then locked length, has the function that adjustment length. Thus, Zhoa Xia improves upon DIPA by offering advantages including capable of adjusting different pipe diameter sizes, and can adjust different screw lengths and locked length to further facilitating proper locking of the tightened fit of the pipe clamp onto the pipe (see English translation copy page 2 of Zhao Xia for details). As a result, above discussed advantages of Zhoa Xia over DIPA serves as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine and modify DIPA by Zhoa Xia, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both DIPA and Zhoa Xia belong as analogous art in the field of pipe support hanger with threaded rods and pipe clamp.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 15 contain allowable subject matter. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements and all statutory requirements under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
None of cited prior art DIPA and Huang singularly or in any combination thereof, disclose or teach “wherein said support shoes have an internal radius corresponding to the outer diameter of the round tubular member being supported” of claim 4, “wherein said hanger shoes have an internal radius corresponding to the outer diameter of the round tubular member being supported” of claim 11, and “a pair of combination support and hanger shoes provisioned to cradle said round tubular member and engage said threaded rods, and wherein a respective combination support and hanger shoe rigidly couples to the distal end of a respective rod; and a circumferential clamping mechanism for the binding of said combination support and hanger shoes to said tubular member” of claim 15. By virtue of dependency upon claim 15, dependent claims 16-21 also contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Flower (US 2161782) discloses a pipe hanger. Jolly (US 20240309908A1) discoes a pivot channel nut device. Ware (US 20050029419A1) discloses a hose clamp type pipe mount. Roth (US 9777870B2) discloses a bracket for seismic bracing of pipes. Ball (US 6102341) disclose a seed clip hanger bracket. Bigham (US 20050258315A1) discloses a pipe support apparatus. Mighton (US 4029301) discloses clamp means for pipe.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632