Final 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) and anticipated by Brown as part of US 9980434 B1, hereinafter referred to as Brown, have been fully considered and the rejections withdrawn in view of a new rejection as detailed below. While Brown may still be applicable to the claimed invention under a broad interpretation of the disclosure, in the interest of compact prosecution, a new grounds of rejection is being applied under 35 USC 102(a)(2) under Zeiler et al as part of US 20190341826 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zeiler, to better apply to the intended scope of the disclosure, and therefore the arguments presented are moot.
In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner wishes to respond to specific arguments presented by Applicant as they relate to limitations which Brown discloses.
With regard to claims 9-11, applicant argues that the recitation of “a single hand operated drive mechanism” requires only one hand operated drive mechanism to control the operation of both the first and second hub motors as described in the instant application, wherein the disclosure of Brown recites, as mapped in the previous office action, two separate drive levers. Applicant posits that Brown does not anticipate the claimed invention on account of these two drive levers.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The phrase “a single hand operated drive mechanism” does not limit the scope of the claimed invention to exclude assemblies such as Brown, as the two drive levers 132a and 132b make up a single assembly in the form of the user actuated speed and direction interface 352, and as such, may be considered as component parts of a single hand operated drive mechanism, which coupled to the first and second hub motors, and is configured to control the operation of said first and second motors.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the limitation “a single drive speed control coupled to the first hub motor and the second hub motor; wherein the single drive speed control is configured to control the speed of the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly” are not a mere duplication of parts as asserted in the prior office action, as the disclosure of Brown teaches that two independent inputs are required, whereas the instant application discloses a single control layer that allows for synchronized speed control across both the first and second wheel assemblies.
In support of this argument, Applicant posits that the “single drive speed control” takes the form of a specific user facing input device, where Brown discloses a high current output controller, and as such, Brown does not disclose a “speed selector” that the operator manipulates to choose a velocity, instead disclosing actuators that execute a command.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive. While the specification does outline the details of the “single drive speed control” of the instant application, none of the relevant details, such as being a specific user facing input device, or that it is configured in such a way to be manipulated by an operator to choose a velocity, are present in the claimed language of the instant application. All that is required by the amended claim language is “A single drive speed control coupled to the first hub motor and the second hub motor…wherein the single drive speed control is configured to control the speed of the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly”. In this context, the disclosure of Brown does satisfy the limitations of the drive speed control as described in the claim (Brown: Col. 7, line 27-45, the motor controllers 358 and 362 control the rotational speed of motors 368 and 370, said motors being configured to drive the drive wheels 374 and 376).
Applicant further posits that modifying Brown to utilize a single controller would eliminate independent wheel variation required for Brown’s primary purpose of zero-turn steering, and would render Brown inoperable, as the disclosure of Brown requires two separate inputs to be directed towards the two separate motor controllers. Applicant states that the disclosure of Brown lacks the specific structural element of a single input that dictates the speed of both the first and second wheel assemblies simultaneously, and that there is no motivation in the disclosure of Brown to modify the dual lever system for a single synchronized speed control lever of the present invention.
Examiner does cede that there is no explicit mention in the disclosure of Brown that the dual lever system would be modified for a single control lever; however, examiner does not claim that the dual lever system is analogous to the “drive speed control” of the instant application. Per in re Hraza, a mere duplication/omission of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Examiner does not find that there is patentable significance of using a single motor controller to control the outputs of both drive motors, as the result of controlling each drive wheel based on input received from the interface 352 would be an expected outcome by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed. Even taking the drive levers 132a and 132b as the “drive speed control”, the two levers may be considered part of a single system as described above.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that the first and second motor controllers 358 and 362 are not speed selectors, and are configured to provide two separate signals to control the two wheels respectively. While the argument of “speed selectors” is addressed above, examiner does cede that brown does explicitly state that there are two separate signals with two distinct output functions, even if they originate from a single source of interface 352. As such, Examiner finds the argument that Brown does not teach of a single signal persuasive.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues that claim 8 requires “releasing either…of the first hand operated drive control mechanism and the second hand operated drive control mechanism stops both the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly from rotating in a reverse rotating direction”. Applicant states that the combination of the independent levers of Brown with the reverse capability of Zeiler to arrive at the claimed invention is not obvious. Further, applicant states that when only the first lever is released, that the second wheel assembly would continue to rotate to facilitate a turn.
Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as it misrepresents the language of the claim as presented in the instant application. The language of claim 8 requires “releasing either or both of the first hand operated drive control mechanism and the second hand operated drive control mechanism stops both the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly from rotating in a reverse rotating direction” (emphasis added). The use of the word “or” determines that the claim is satisfied if one condition is met between the two presented options, in this case if either the first and second hand operated drive control mechanisms is released, or if both of the hand operated drive control mechanisms are released. As presented in the prior office action, Brown does explicitly teach wherein when both mechanisms are released, the moving condition of the outdoor power equipment is stopped, thus satisfying the requirements of the claim (Brown: Col. 5, line 18-29, in the absence of input from an operator, such as when the operator is no longer moving levers 132a and 132b, return to neutral mechanisms 141 force the levers 132a and 132b to a neutral position, thus ending output to the wheels).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeiler.
Regarding Claim 1: Zeiler teaches of outdoor power equipment comprising:
a first wheel assembly comprising a first hub motor and coupled to a first side of the outdoor power equipment;
a second wheel assembly comprising a second hub motor coupled to a second side of the outdoor power equipment (Fig. 16, drive wheels 535 are coupled to the sides of snow thrower 500, according to the exemplary embodiment; Paragraph 68, each drive wheel 535 is driven by self-propel unit 540, which includes an electric motor 545):
a single drive speed control coupled to the first hub motor and the second hub motor (Fig. 18; paragraph 69, the self-propel units 540 and electric motors 545 are electrically coupled to controller 250, which sends and receives inputs to control various operational conditions of the snow thrower 500, such as the rotational speed and direction of both drive wheels 535),
and a battery coupled to the first hub motor and the second hub motor and configured to supply electrical power to the first hub motor and the second hub motor (Fig. 17; paragraph 69, electric power head 100 comprises batteries 110, coupled to the electric motors 545 to supply electric power thereto);
wherein the first hub motor is configured to rotate the first wheel assembly to drive the outdoor power equipment;
wherein the second hub motor is configured to rotate the second wheel assembly to drive the outdoor power equipment (Fig. 17, self-propel units 540 are configured to drive their respective drive wheels 535);
Wherein the single drive speed control is configured to control the speed of the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly (Paragraph 69, controller 250 controls the rotational speed and direction of both drive wheels 535)
Regarding Claim 3: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Zeiler further teaches of the apparatus further comprising an electronic control device coupled to the single drive speed control, the first hub motor, and the second hub motor (Paragraph 69, accessory interface 255 is coupled to controller 250 and both electric motors 545);
wherein the single drive speed control provides a single signal to the electronic control device (Paragraph 69, the accessory interface 255 provides signals to controller 250 to operate various electrical components);
and wherein the electronic control device is configured to receive the single signal from the single drive speed control and control the speed of the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly based at least in part on the single signal from the single drive speed control (Paragraph 69, one such signal sent by accessory interface 255 to controller 250 is to control the rotational speed of both drive wheels 535).
Regarding Claim 4: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Zeiler further teaches wherein the rotation of the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly is controlled independently (Paragraph 68; each drive wheel 535 is driven by self-propel unit 540; Paragraph 36, it is known to utilize a zero turn system for outdoor power equipment utilized with electric powerhead 100, and the independent control of the drive wheels 535 facilitate such a zero turn action).
Regarding Claim 9: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Zeiler further teaches of the apparatus further comprising a single hand operated drive mechanism coupled to the first hub motor and the second hub motor and configured to control the operation of the first hub motor and the second hub motor (Paragraph 68, the user hand controls 570 allow for the user to activate or stop the operation of drive wheels 535, and may include one or more buttons, sliders, levers, dials, and other input devices).
Regarding Claim 10: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 9.
Zeiler further teaches wherein operating the hand operated drive mechanism allows the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly to drive the outdoor power equipment (Paragraph 68, the user hand controls 570 allow for the user to activate or stop the operation of drive wheels 535).
Regarding Claim 11: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 9.
Zeiler further teaches of the apparatus further comprising an electronic control device coupled to the single hand operated drive mechanism, the first hub motor, and the second hub motor (Paragraph 69, accessory interface 255 is coupled to user hand controls 570 and both electric motors 545);
wherein the single hand operated drive mechanism provides a signal to the electronic control device (Paragraph 69-70: user hand controls 570 sends signals to the accessory interface 255 to control various electrical components of the device);
and wherein the electronic control device is configured to receive the signal from the single hand operated drive mechanism and control the rotation of the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly based at least in part on the signal from the single hand operated drive mechanism (Paragraph 69, the accessory interface 255 provides signals to controller 250 to operate various electrical components, one such signal sent by accessory interface 255 to controller 250 is to control the rotational speed of both drive wheels 535).
Regarding Claim 12: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Zeiler further teaches of the apparatus further comprising a battery charge indicator coupled to the battery and configured to provide a perceptible indication of a remaining battery electrical charge (Paragraph 71, battery charge level may be displayed to the user by a display device).
Regarding Claim 13: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Zeiler further teaches wherein the battery may be removed from the outdoor power equipment for recharging (Paragraph 48: battery 110 may be removed and attached to a charging station to charge the battery 110).
Regarding Claim 14: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 1.
Zeiler further teaches of the apparatus further comprising:
an auger rotatably coupled to the outdoor power equipment and configured to move snow, an auger drive motor coupled to the auger and the battery and configured to drive the auger; wherein the battery is configured to supply electrical power to the auger drive motor (Fig. 16, snow thrower 500 includes auger 510, which is driven by the electric motor 105, which is powered by battery 110).
Regarding Claim 15: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 14.
Zeiler further teaches of the apparatus further comprising an auger speed control coupled to the auger drive motor; wherein the auger speed control is configured to control the speed of the auger (Paragraph 63, power head 100, which comprises electric motor 105, may comprise a motor speed sensor, which can provide input to controller 250 to control the speed of the motor, and therefore the auger 510).
Regarding Claim 16: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 15.
Zeiler further teaches of the apparatus further comprising an electronic control device coupled to the auger speed control and the auger drive motor;
wherein the auger speed control provides a signal to the electronic control device;
and wherein the electronic control device is configured to receive the signal from the auger speed control and control the speed of the auger based at least in part on the signal from the auger speed control (Paragraph 63/69, controller 250 is in communication with external electrical components to send and receive inputs and outputs, such as from the user hand controls 570 of the user interface 530, which includes controlling operation of components on the snow thrower, such as the motor 105's rotational speed via the motor speed sensor).
Regarding Claim 17: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 14.
Zeiler further teaches of the apparatus further comprising a hand operated auger control mechanism coupled to the auger drive motor and configured to control the operation of the auger drive motor (Paragraph 68, user hand controls 570 of user interface 530 may control the operation of the auger 510, which is driven by electric motor 510).
Regarding Claim 18: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 17.
Zeiler further teaches wherein operating the hand operated auger control mechanism allows the auger drive motor to drive the auger (Paragraph 68, user hand controls 570 of user interface 530 may control the operation of the auger 510, which is driven by electric motor 110).
Regarding Claim 19: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 17.
Zeiler further teaches of the apparatus further comprising an electronic control device coupled to the hand operated auger control mechanism and the auger drive motor (Paragraph 69, controller 250 is in communication with the user hand controls 570 of the user interface 530);
wherein the hand operated auger control mechanism provides a signal to the electronic control device (Paragraph 69, controller 250 is in communication with external electrical components to send and receive inputs and outputs, such as from the user hand controls 570 of the user interface 530);
and wherein the electronic control device is configured to receive the signal from the hand operated auger control mechanism and control the auger drive motor based at least in part on the signal from the hand operated auger control mechanism (Paragraph 68-69, controller 250 sends signals to external components of the snow thrower based on signals from the user interface 530, such as control of the electric motor 110 that controls the operation of auger 510).
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 (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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler in view of Brown.
Regarding Claim 5: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 4.
While Zeiler does teach of a plurality of hand operated control mechanisms, and wherein the hand operated control mechanisms are configured to control the rotation of the wheel assemblies (Zeiler: Paragraph 68, the user hand controls 570 allow for the user to activate or stop the operation of drive wheels 535, and may include one or more buttons, sliders, levers, dials, and other input devices), no specific detail is given regarding a specific first and second hand operated drive control mechanism coupled to the respective first and second hub motors, wherein the first and second hand operated drive control mechanism control the rotation of the respective first and second wheel assemblies.
Brown teaches of outdoor power equipment, comprising:
a first wheel assembly comprising a first hub motor and coupled to a first side of the outdoor power equipment (Brown: Fig. 3, drive wheel 374 is coupled to motor 368);
a second wheel assembly comprising a second hub motor coupled to a second side of the outdoor power equipment (Brown: Fig. 3, drive wheel 376 is coupled to motor 370);
wherein the first hub motor is configured to rotate the first wheel assembly to drive the outdoor power equipment (Col. 7, line 41-45, rotational output from motor 368 is transmitted to drive wheel 374);
wherein the second hub motor is configured to rotate the second wheel assembly to drive the outdoor power equipment (Col. 7, line 41-45, rotational output from motor 370 is transmitted to drive wheel 376);
a first hand operated drive control mechanism coupled to the first hub motor;
and a second hand operated drive control mechanism coupled to the second hub motor (Fig. 3; Col. 7, line 23-26, drive levers 132a and 132b make up user actuated speed and direction interface 352, which is connected to and sends signals and commands to master controller 238);
wherein the first hand operated drive control mechanism is configured to control the rotation of the first wheel assembly;
and wherein the second hand operated drive control mechanism is configured to control the rotation of the second wheel assembly (Col. 7, line 27-45, based on the input of direction interface 352, the master controller sends outputs to the motors 368 and 370 to rotate the drive wheels 374 and 376).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generic, unspecified one or more buttons, slider, levers, dials, and other input devices which are said to control the rotation of the drive wheels 535 as part of the user hand controls 570 of Zeiler with the specific first and second hand operated drive control mechanisms taught as part of the user actuated speed and direction interface 352 of Brown. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of utilizing a first and second hand operated control mechanisms to control the operation of the respective first and second wheel assemblies of outdoor power equipment (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 6: Zeiler in view of Brown teaches of the apparatus described in claim 5.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 5, Brown further teaches wherein operating the first hand operated drive control mechanism controls the rotation of the first wheel assembly thereby turning the outdoor power equipment in a first direction;
and wherein operating the second hand operated drive control mechanism controls the rotation of the second wheel assembly thereby turning the outdoor power equipment in a second direction (Brown: Fig. 1-3, levers 132a and 132b are coupled to transaxles 110a and 110b respectively, which drive wheels 114. Further, it is stated that electric motors drive the wheels of the present invention, the electronic control system 324 of these electric motors 368 and 370 to drive wheels 374 and 376, which implies the wheels 374 and 376 to be analogous to wheels 114).
Regarding Claim 7: Zeiler in view of Brown teaches of the apparatus described in claim 5.
While Zeiler teaches of an electronic control device coupled to a hand operated control mechanism, the second hand operated drive control mechanism, the first hub motor, and the second hub motor (Zeiler: Paragraph 69, accessory interface 255 is coupled to user hand controls 570 and both electric motors 545), wherein the hand operated control mechanism provides a signal to the electronic control device to operate the wheel assemblies (Zeiler: Paragraph 69, the accessory interface 255 provides signals to controller 250 to operate various electrical components, one such signal sent by accessory interface 255 to controller 250 is to control the rotational speed of both drive wheels 535), no specific detail is given to the hand operated control mechanism in particular.
In light of the modifications described above in claim 5, Brown further teaches of an electronic control device coupled to the first hand operated drive control mechanism, the second hand operated drive control mechanism, the first hub motor, and the second hub motor (Fig. 3; Col. 7, line 23-26, drive levers 132a and 132b make up user actuated speed and direction interface 352, which is connected to and sends signals and commands to master controller 238; master controller 328 is coupled to the motor controller 358 and 362 and motors 368 and 370);
wherein the first hand operated drive control mechanism provides a signal to the electronic control device;
wherein the electronic control device is configured to receive the signal from the first hand operated drive control mechanism and control the rotation of the first wheel assembly based at least in part on the signal from the first hand operated drive control mechanism (Col. 7, line 27-45, based on the input of user actuated speed and direction interface 352, the master controller sends outputs to the motor 368 to rotate the drive wheels 374);
wherein the second hand operated drive control mechanism provides a signal to the electronic control device;
and wherein the electronic control device is configured to receive the signal from the second hand operated drive control mechanism and control the rotation of the second wheel assembly based at least in part on the signal from the second hand operated drive control mechanism (Col. 7, line 27-45, based on the input of user actuated speed and direction interface 352, the master controller sends outputs to the motor 370 to rotate the drive wheels 376).
Regarding Claim 8: Zeiler in view of Brown teaches of the apparatus described in claim 5.
Zeiler teaches of the outdoor power equipment, wherein the hand operated control mechanism is capable of operating the first and second wheel assemblies in a reverse rotation direction to drive the outdoor power equipment in a reverse direction (Zeiler: Paragraph 36, the outdoor power equipment described is applicable to zero-turn vehicles; Paragraph 68, the independent drive wheels 535 can be activated by user hand controls 570 in a forward and reverse direction based on user input).
In light of the modifications described above in claim 5, brown teaches wherein operating both the first hand operated drive control mechanism and the second hand operated drive control mechanism at the same time controls the rotation of the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly in a reverse rotation direction thereby driving the outdoor power equipment in a reverse direction (Col. 1, line 35-40, zero turn systems are known, wherein independent control of the first and second outputs, such as through user actuated speed and direction interface 352, control the operation of the wheels 374 and 376);
and wherein releasing either or both of the first hand operated drive control mechanism and the second hand operated drive control mechanism stops both the first wheel assembly and the second wheel assembly from rotating in a reverse rotation direction and stops driving the outdoor power equipment in a reverse direction (Brown: Col. 5, line 18-29, in the absence of input from an operator, such as when the operator is no longer moving levers 132a and 132b, return to neutral mechanisms 141 force the levers 132a and 132b to a neutral position, thus ending output to the wheels).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeiler in view of Hansen et al as part of WO 2012177234 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hansen.
Regarding Claim 20: Zeiler teaches of the apparatus described in claim 14.
While Zeiler does teach of a discharge chute rotatably coupled to the outdoor power equipment (Zeiler: Fig. 16, chute 547 is rotatable coupled to the snow thrower 500), and Zeiler states that there is a hand operated user input that may control the movement of the discharge chute (Zeiler: Paragraph 68, user interface 530 may comprise switches, buttons, sliders, levers, dials, touch screens, and other user input devices to control operation of components on the snow thrower, such as the rotation of the chute 547), Zeiler does not teach the specifics of the chute rotation handle, nor does it teach of a locking position of the handle to prevent rotation of the discharge chute when the handle is in a locked position.
Hansen teaches of a snow blower apparatus comprising:
a discharge chute rotatably coupled to the outdoor power equipment (Hansen: Fig. 1, chute 40 is rotatably coupled to the snow blower 10),
and a discharge chute rotation handle coupled to the discharge chute (Hansen: Fig. 3, control head 54 is connected to chute base 52 of chute 40 via cable system 56);
wherein the discharge chute may be rotated by moving the discharge chute rotation handle (Hansen: paragraph 24, rotation of control head 54 acts to rotates chute base 52, and thus rotates chute 40 mounted thereon),
and wherein the discharge chute rotation handle is configured to prevent rotation of the discharge chute when the discharge chute rotation handle is in a locked position (Hansen: Paragraph 19, when control head 54 is in a neutral position, the chute base 52 is designed to lock or fix the chute 40 in place; as such, the neutral position of the control head 54 may be considered a "locked position").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the generically referred to user hand controls taught by Zeiler with the specific control head and cable control mechanism with a locking structure taught by Hansen to allow a user to rotate the discharge chute remotely in an intuitive way (Hansen: Paragraph 5-8, such a chute rotation system as disclosed may provide an easy and intuitive way to remotely position the chute, improving the operator’s ability to manipulate the chute of the snow blower and improve the experience of operating the snow blower). Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of improving the quality of the user experience of utilizing the snow blower (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Conclusion
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 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 EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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, Christopher J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights