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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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, the claim recites “an impact hydroforming mold with integration of blank holder and feeding” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the mold is incorporating a component that is being referred to as “feeding” or if this is meant to be a method step performed by the mold, in which case it is not clear what is meant to be fed, e.g., the liquid medium or the workpiece. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as an impact hydroforming mold with integration of blank holder and configured to feed a liquid medium. It is noted that “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite,” as discussed in MPEP 2173.05(p), so any amendments should make clear that the mold is configured to feed and not performing a feeding method step. The claim also recites “wherein the shape of the forming mold cavity is matched with the shape of a target component” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required for something to “match” a shape, e.g., they are the same shape or the cavity has a shape that does not interfere with forming the target shape. For the purpose of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as the cavity does not interfere with the formation of the target shape. The claim also recites “the liquid medium in the liquid chamber can be throttled and depressurized through the throttling flow channel and then contacted with a thickness side face of the sheet” which renders the claim indefinite because the claim is directed to a mold and it is not clear if the liquid medium and sheet are part of the mold or materials that are controlled by the mold, e.g., the mold is recited as having a liquid chamber for containing a liquid medium and does not recite the liquid medium is in the chamber. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the mold is configured to throttle and depressurize the liquid medium in the liquid chamber through the throttling flow channel and cause the liquid medium to contact a thickness side face of the sheet. Claims 2-16 depend from claim 1 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “the first flow control structure and the second flow control structure are relatively spaced apart” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required for things to be “relatively” spaced apart, i.e., a certain distance apart or simply not touching. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the structures are spaced apart. Claims 4 and 6-8 depend from claim 3 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the liquid medium in the liquid chamber can enter the floating space through the throttling flow channel” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the liquid medium is part of the mold or the mold is configured to receive the liquid medium. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the mold is configured such that the liquid medium in the liquid chamber can enter the floating space through the throttling flow channel.
Regarding claims 8 and 15-16, these claims each recite “the surface area at the side of the second flow control structure far from the liquid chamber” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required for the channel to be “far” from the mold, i.e., a set distance away or farther away than another component. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as any part of the channel.
Regarding claims 9-16, each of these claims are method claims that are recites as a method “which is carried out by adopting the impact hydroforming mold with integration of blank holder and feeding according to” one of the apparatus claims, which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required to “adopt a mold” and it is not clear if this is a method step or defining the apparatus used to carry out the method. For the purpose of examination, each of these preambles will be interpreted as an impact hydroforming method performed with the mold recited in the noted claims, e.g., in claim 9 the preamble would be “an impact hydroforming method carried out by the apparatus recited in claim 1, comprising the steps of.” Further, it is noted that claims 11-16 appear to recite a method being carried out by a mold from a claim that is a method claim. These claims will be interpreted as using the apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the claims each recite “placing the blank holder ring on the side of the sheet far from the lower concave mold” which renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear what is required for a side of the sheet to be “far” from the mold, i.e., a set distance away or farther away than the other side. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as any side of the sheet. Claims 10-16 depend from claim 9 and fail to clarify the indefinite language.
Regarding claims 11-14, these claims are method claims that appear to only recite apparatus limitations. It is unclear if these claims are meant to be further limiting the apparatus which is used to perform the method or if these are supposed to be method steps. For the purpose of examination, these claims will be interpreted as further defining the apparatus recited in the preamble of the parent claims.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “the first flow control structure and the second flow control structure are relatively spaced apart” which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what is required for things to be “relatively” spaced apart, i.e., a certain distance apart or simply not touching. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as the structures are spaced apart.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4,472,955 to Nakamura.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches an impact hydroforming mold with integration of blank holder and feeding (Fig. 1), comprising:
a lower concave mold 1, which is provided with a forming mold cavity 2, wherein the shape of the forming mold cavity 2 is matched with the shape of a target component (Figs. 1-3; Col. 5, Lns. 18-27; the cavity 2 matches the shape of the target component by allowing the shape to be formed, as shown in Figs. 1-3);
a blank holder ring, which is placed on a sheet to form pressing on the sheet during a forming operation of the mold, wherein the blank holder ring is provided with a central hole corresponding to the position of a cavity opening of the forming mold cavity (Figs. 1-3; Col. 6, Lns. 13-19; the blank holder ring is the component between the space 7 and passages 9 shown in Figs. 1-3 that contacts the sheet during forming, i.e., placed on by contacting and keeping in position, and includes a central hole that leads to cavity 2);
a working sleeve assembly 5, which is sleeved on the radial outer side of the blank holder ring and is hermetically connected to a first end face of the lower concave mold 2 (Figs. 1-3; Col. 6, Lns. 28-32; the sleeve 5 is positioned on an outer side of the blank holder ring and is hermetically connected to the lower concave mold, as shown in Fig. 3 in which the liquid medium moved between the two), wherein the working sleeve assembly comprises a working sleeve 5 (Figs. 1-3);
the working sleeve 5 has a liquid chamber for containing a liquid medium and a stamping acceleration channel for guiding linear movement of a rigid impactor 4 (Figs. 1-5; Col. 47-65; the liquid is shown in the chamber within the sleeve 5 in Fig. 3, and the punch 4 is guided by the walls of the sleeve 5 as shown in Figs. 1-5);
a throttling flow channel 9 is formed between one end of the working sleeve 5 facing the lower concave mold 1, and one end of the blank holder ring facing the working sleeve 5 (Figs. 1-5; Col. 5, Lns. 33-46; the channels 9 are formed between the sleeve 5 and the blank holder ring at the locations near wall 6 where the channel 9 connects to space 7); and
the liquid medium in the liquid chamber can be throttled and depressurized through the throttling flow channel 9 and then contacted with a thickness side face of the sheet (Figs. 1-5; Col. 5, Lns. 47-65 and Col. 6, Lns. 5-26).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming mold according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-5), wherein the working sleeve 5 assembly further comprises a fixed sleeve which is hermetically sleeved on the end of the working sleeve facing the lower concave mold 1 (Fig. 11 shows the full sleeve assembly, which includes the upper portion having flange elements to abut against and seal against portions of the mold, while Figs. 1-4 show the embodiment in which the lower fixed sleeve, i.e., the portion of the sleeve below the flange, is hermetically sealed with the lower concave mold); and the working sleeve assembly is hermetically connected to the lower concave mold by means of the fixed sleeve (Figs. 1-4; as discussed above, the lower portion of the sleeve, i.e., the fixed sleeve, is hermetically sealed with the lower concave mold).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura teaches an impact hydroforming method of a sheet (Figs. 1-4), which is carried out by adopting the impact hydroforming mold with integration of blank holder and feeding according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-4), comprising the following steps of:
fixing the lower concave mold 1 on a base (while Figs. 1-4 do not show the area under the lower mold 1, Fig. 6 shows that the lower mold is placed on a base);
placing the sheet W on the lower concave mold 1 and covering the cavity 2 opening of the forming mold cavity 1 (Fig. 1);
placing the blank holder ring on the side of the sheet W far from the lower concave mold 1 (Fig. 1; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above, this claim is interpreted as the blank holder ring is positioned on a side of the sheet);
assembling the working sleeve assembly 5 on the lower concave mold 1 (Figs. 1-4; the sleeve 5 is on top of the mold);
filling the liquid medium A into the liquid chamber 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 5, Lns. 47-65); and
controlling the rigid impactor 4 to descend to impact the liquid medium at a preset pressure (Figs. 1-4; Col. 6, Lns. 5-45).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming method of a sheet, which is carried out by adopting the impact hydroforming mold with integration of blank holder and feeding according to claim 9 (Figs. 1-4), wherein the working sleeve assembly further comprises a fixed sleeve which is hermetically sleeved on the end of the working sleeve facing the lower concave mold 1 (Fig. 11 shows the full sleeve assembly, which includes the upper portion having flange elements to abut against and seal against portions of the mold, while Figs. 1-4 show the embodiment in which the lower fixed sleeve, i.e., the portion of the sleeve below the flange, is hermetically sealed with the lower concave mold) and the working sleeve assembly is hermetically connected to the lower concave mold by means of the fixed sleeve (Figs. 1-4; as discussed above, the lower portion of the sleeve, i.e., the fixed sleeve, is hermetically sealed with the lower concave mold).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming mold according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-3), wherein the end of the working sleeve 5 facing the lower concave mold is a first conical face (Figs. 1-5; this limitation is interpreted as any part of the end of the working sleeve 5 facing the blank holder has a conical face, and the angled edge closest to the punch and workpiece in Figs. 2-3 has a conical shape because the surface is angled and the chamber is circular); the end of the blank holder ring facing the working sleeve is a second conical face (Figs. 1-5; this limitation is interpreted as any part of the end of the blank holder facing the blank holder has a conical face, and the angled edge closest to the punch and workpiece in Figs. 2-3 has a conical shape because the surface is angled and the chamber is circular).
Nakamura fails to teach the taper of either surface, and therefore fails to explicitly teach a taper of the first conical face is equal to that of the second conical face. However, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the taper of both surfaces be equal, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05). The specification does not disclose any criticality to the tapers of the surfaces being equal and merely states that in some embodiments the tapers are equal (Spec, P. 6, Paragraph starting “In some embodiments, the end of the working sleeve”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Nakamura to obtain the invention as recited in claim 2 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Regarding claim 3 modified Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming mold according to claim 2 (Figs. 1-5), wherein the first conical face is provided with a first flow control structure extending along a circumferential direction (Figs. 1-5 show the liquid medium flowing through the space between the sleeve and the punch, which forms a flow control structure); the second conical face is provided with a second flow control structure extending along a circumferential direction (Figs. 1-5 show the liquid medium flowing through the space between the blank holder and the workpiece, which forms a flow control structure); and the first flow control structure and the second flow control structure are relatively spaced apart to form a throttling annular gap for the liquid medium (Figs. 1-5 show the space between the tapered surfaces forms a gap that the liquid medium flows through during forming processes).
Regarding claim 4 modified Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming mold according to claim 3 (Figs. 1-5), wherein on the axial section of the working sleeve 5, the cross-sectional shapes of the first flow control structure and the second flow control structure are semicircular (Figs. 1-5; as each of the tapered surfaces of the sleeve 5 and blank holder extend around the circular chamber which holds the liquid medium, each of these surfaces would be semi-circular as they partially surround a circular cavity and the flow control structures formed by these surfaces would also be semi-circular).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming mold according to claim 3 (Figs. 1-5), wherein a positioning convex ring 6 protruding towards one side of the working sleeve is formed at a cavity opening of the forming mold cavity (Figs. 1-4; Col. 5, Lns. 18-32); the positioning convex ring is sleeved with a positioning ring 6 (Figs. 1-4; the wall 5 is a ring that defines the convex ring in which the workpiece is positioned); floating space 70 is formed between the positioning ring 6 and the first end face (Figs. 1-4 show that space 70 formed by the wall and the end faces of the sleeve and holding ring); and the liquid medium in the liquid chamber can enter the floating space through the throttling flow channel (Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming mold according to claim 6 (Figs. 1-5), wherein friction coefficients of the blank holder ring and the positioning ring are the same as μ; during a mold forming operation, the surface area of the thickness side face of the sheet is S1; the intensity of pressure of the liquid medium in the liquid chamber is P0; the intensity of pressure of the liquid medium throttled through the throttling flow channel is P1; the surface area of the second conical face at the side of the second flow control structure close to the liquid chamber is S2; the surface area at the side of the second flow control structure far from the liquid chamber is S3; a taper angle of the second conical face is α; the surface area of the side of the positioning ring facing away from the blank holder ring is S4; and P1·S1-μ((P0·S2+P1·S3)cosα+P1·S4) >0, and P1< P0 (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim recites the symbols for each of these variables but provides no information about the units of measurement or even if each of the symbols directed to the same concepts, e.g., pressure, are calculated using the same units, therefore as each of these values exist in Nakamura and may be measured in any manner, e.g., the same thickness could be 12 inches or 1 foot or 30 cm or 0.3 m and so on, the equation may be satisfied through selection of the appropriate unit of measurement).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming mold according to claim 3 (Figs. 1-4), wherein the friction coefficient of the blank holder ring is μ; during a mold forming operation, the surface area of the thickness side face of the sheet is S1; the intensity of pressure of the liquid medium in the liquid chamber is P0; the intensity of pressure of the liquid medium throttled through the throttling flow channel is P1; the surface area of the second conical face at the side of the second flow control structure close to the liquid chamber is S2; the surface area at the side of the second flow control structure far from the liquid chamber is S3; a taper angle of the second conical face is α; and P1·S1-μ(P0·S2+P1·S3)cosα>0, and P1< P0 (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim recites the symbols for each of these variables but provides no information about the units of measurement or even if each of the symbols directed to the same concepts, e.g., pressure, are calculated using the same units, therefore as each of these values exist in Nakamura and may be measured in any manner, e.g., the same thickness could be 12 inches or 1 foot or 30 cm or 0.3 m and so on, the equation may be satisfied through selection of the appropriate unit of measurement).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nakamura teaches an impact hydroforming method of a sheet, which is carried out by adopting the impact hydroforming mold according to claim 6 (Figs. 1-4), comprising the following steps of:
fixing the lower concave mold 1 on a base (while Figs. 1-4 do not show the area under the lower mold 1, Fig. 6 shows that the lower mold is placed on a base);
sleeving the positioning ring 6 on the positioning convex ring (Figs. 1-4 show the positioning ring is a sleeve that extends around and defines the convex ring);
placing the sheet W on the positioning ring and covering the cavity 2 opening of the forming mold cavity (Figs. 1-4 show the sheet is positioned within the ring and on the space defined by the ring such that it covers the cavity);
placing the blank holder ring on the side of the sheet far from the lower concave mold 1 (Fig. 1; as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection above, this claim is interpreted as the blank holder ring is positioned on a side of the sheet);
assembling the working sleeve 5 assembly on the lower concave mold 1 (Figs. 1-4; the sleeve 5 is on top of the mold);
filling the liquid medium A into the liquid chamber 2 (Figs. 1-4; Col. 5, Lns. 47-65); and
controlling the rigid impactor 4 to descend to impact the liquid medium at a preset pressure (Figs. 1-4; Col. 6, Lns. 5-45).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming method of a sheet, which is carried out by adopting the impact hydroforming mold with integration of blank holder and feeding according to claim 9 (Figs. 1-4), wherein he end of the working sleeve 5 facing the lower concave mold is a first conical face (Figs. 1-5; this limitation is interpreted as any part of the end of the working sleeve 5 facing the blank holder has a conical face, and the angled edge closest to the punch and workpiece in Figs. 2-3 has a conical shape because the surface is angled and the chamber is circular); the end of the blank holder ring facing the working sleeve is a second conical face (Figs. 1-5; this limitation is interpreted as any part of the end of the blank holder facing the blank holder has a conical face, and the angled edge closest to the punch and workpiece in Figs. 2-3 has a conical shape because the surface is angled and the chamber is circular).
Nakamura fails to teach the taper of either surface, and therefore fails to explicitly teach a taper of the first conical face is equal to that of the second conical face. However, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the taper of both surfaces be equal, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, determining the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP § 2144.05). The specification does not disclose any criticality to the tapers of the surfaces being equal and merely states that in some embodiments the tapers are equal (Spec, P. 6, Paragraph starting “In some embodiments, the end of the working sleeve”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Nakamura to obtain the invention as recited in claim 11 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, modified Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming method of a sheet, which is carried out by adopting the impact hydroforming mold with integration of blank holder and feeding according to claim 11 (Figs. 1-4), wherein the first conical face is provided with a first flow control structure extending along a circumferential direction (Figs. 1-5 show the liquid medium flowing through the space between the sleeve and the punch, which forms a flow control structure); the second conical face is provided with a second flow control structure extending along a circumferential direction (Figs. 1-5 show the liquid medium flowing through the space between the blank holder and the workpiece, which forms a flow control structure); and the first flow control structure and the second flow control structure are relatively spaced apart to form a throttling annular gap for the liquid medium (Figs. 1-5 show the space between the tapered surfaces forms a gap that the liquid medium flows through during forming processes).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming method of a sheet, which is carried out by adopting the impact hydroforming mold with integration of blank holder and feeding according to claim 12 (Figs. 1-4), wherein on the axial section of the working sleeve, the cross-sectional shapes of the first flow control structure and the second flow control structure are semicircular (Figs. 1-5; as each of the tapered surfaces of the sleeve 5 and blank holder extend around the circular chamber which holds the liquid medium, each of these surfaces would be semi-circular as they partially surround a circular cavity and the flow control structures formed by these surfaces would also be semi-circular).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming method of a sheet, which is carried out by adopting the impact hydroforming mold with integration of blank holder and feeding according to claim 12 (Figs. 1-4), wherein the friction coefficient of the blank holder ring is μ; during a mold forming operation, the surface area of the thickness side face of the sheet is S1; the intensity of pressure of the liquid medium in the liquid chamber is P0; the intensity of pressure of the liquid medium throttled through the throttling flow channel is P1; the surface area of the second conical face at the side of the second flow control structure close to the liquid chamber is S2; the surface area at the side of the second flow control structure far from the liquid chamber is S3; a taper angle of the second conical face is α; and P1·S1-μ(P0·S2+P1·S3)cosα>0, and P1< P0 (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim recites the symbols for each of these variables but provides no information about the units of measurement or even if each of the symbols directed to the same concepts, e.g., pressure, are calculated using the same units, therefore as each of these values exist in Nakamura and may be measured in any manner, e.g., the same thickness could be 12 inches or 1 foot or 30 cm or 0.3 m and so on, the equation may be satisfied through selection of the appropriate unit of measurement).
Regarding claim 16, modified Nakamura teaches the impact hydroforming method of a sheet, which is carried out by adopting the impact hydroforming mold according to claim 10 (Figs. 1-4), wherein friction coefficients of the blank holder ring and the positioning ring are the same as μ; during a mold forming operation, the surface area of the thickness side face of the sheet is S1; the intensity of pressure of the liquid medium in the liquid chamber is P0; the intensity of pressure of the liquid medium throttled through the throttling flow channel is P1; the surface area of the second conical face at the side of the second flow control structure close to the liquid chamber is S2; the surface area at the side of the second flow control structure far from the liquid chamber is S3; a taper angle of the second conical face is α; the surface area of the side of the positioning ring facing away from the blank holder ring is S4; and P1·S1-μ((P0·S2+P1·S3)cosα+P1·S4) >0, and P1< P0 (Figs. 1-4; it is noted that this claim recites the symbols for each of these variables but provides no information about the units of measurement or even if each of the symbols directed to the same concepts, e.g., pressure, are calculated using the same units, therefore as each of these values exist in Nakamura and may be measured in any manner, e.g., the same thickness could be 12 inches or 1 foot or 30 cm or 0.3 m and so on, the equation may be satisfied through selection of the appropriate unit of measurement).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0129495 A1 (Figs. 13-15) teach a mold including a liquid chamber and a space between the lower mold and sleeve in which the liquid medium may flow into the space and exert pressure on the thickness of the sheet. EP 0092253 (Figs. 1-5) teaches a mold including a lower mold, a liquid chamber, a sleeve and channels that allow the liquid medium in the chamber to flow up in the space holding the workpiece and into the sleeve space in which the punch moves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights