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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/24/2024was filed on or after the mailing date of the application.
The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed on 04/24/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/04/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Regarding Claim 1, the recitation of “at least one outer enclosure,” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The application must meet the requirements as to the content and form of the description set forth by at least MPEP 608.01(a) more specifically 37 C.F.R. 1.77.
In at least 0069 the specification recites, “…inner zone Zi” and in at least 0079 the specification recites “interior chamber Zi.” Throughout the specification Zi is cited as “interior zone Zi”.
Please amend specification to recite - - interior zone Zi - - for all references of Zi and - - int - - for all inner zone references in the specification, for clarity. Please review and correct this throughout the specification.
In at least para. 0084 the specification recites, “… a controllable ventilation valve 54 being positioned at the second inlet 48.1.” Later in the specification recites “controllable ventilation valve 56” in at least 0103.
Please amend specification to recite - - a controllable ventilation valve 56 being positioned at the second inlet 48.1- - for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of claim limitation “remote element" in at least claim 4.
Corresponds to “the controller” in paragraph 0081 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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) 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minas et al. (US20240151358A1) and Miller et al. (US20230366353A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Minas teaches an aircraft [100] comprising:
at least one secondary structure [5710, 5712, 5714, 5716 & 5718] separating an inner zone [5512 & 5502] from an outer zone [fig. 57; at least 5506A/B, 5730 and 5732], at least one motor [5504] that uses hydrogen located in the inner zone of the secondary structure [0478; “providing GH2 fuel to the engine 5502, and more specifically, to the combustor 5504”], at least one hydrogen tank [5506A], and at least one hydrogen supplying device [5510] connecting the at least one hydrogen tank [5560A] and the at least one motor [0468 “for providing hydrogen fuel to the engine”], the at least one hydrogen supplying device [5510] comprising:
at least one portion [see image I below; recreation of fig. 57 of Minas] having at least one outer enclosure [Image I below where (5714) is at least one outer enclosure] that is at least one vessel [5714],
first and second shut-off valves [5722 & 5730] configured to isolate said at least portion [image I] in case of a leak of hydrogen [0511 “based on measurement data from the hydrogen sensors 5736 to reduce the hydrogen concentration within the compartment(s)”],
at least one inner element [5518, 5520 and any fluid conduit in fig. 57], located in the at least one outer enclosure [5714] and carrying the hydrogen [0469 “pump 5518 cryogenically pressurizes the LH2 fuel”], the at least one inner element being at least one inner pipe [any fluid conduit in fig. 57], at least one pump [5518], at least one heat exchanger [5520] or at least one shut-off valve [5722, 5721 or 5728], at least one interior zone [image I below] being located between the inner element and the outer enclosure [image I below],
at least one ventilation system [fig. 57; at least 5732 and flowlines connected thereto] configured to vent a gas present [0497 “hydrogen concentration” where the hydrogen concentration would be a gas] in the inner zone [5512 & 5502] toward the outer zone [at least 5506A/B, 5730 and 5732] of the at least one secondary structure [00495 “flowlines leading to the atmosphere outside of the aircraft”].
Minas does not explicitly teach the at least one vessel delimiting the at least one interior zone and having a cylindrical tubular body and
at least one injection system for injecting an inert gas into the at least one interior zone, comprising:
one inert gas tank,
one injection pipe connecting the one inert gas tank and the at least one interior zone,
one regulation system for controlling a flow of the inert gas in the one injection pipe, and
one diffuser connected to the one inert gas tank and positioned in the at least one outer pipe or the at least one vessel substantially coaxial with the cylindrical tubular body.
However, Miller teaches the at least one vessel [100 corresponding to 5714 of Minas] delimiting the at least one interior zone [fig. 6 showing an interior zone corresponding to image I of Minas] and having a cylindrical tubular body [at least fig. 6 showing 100 having a cylindrical tubular body] and
at least one injection system [300] for injecting an inert gas [0055 “purge gas”] into the at least one interior zone [0055 “purge gas may be used to push the hydrogen fuel through the fuel system 200 and out the fuel nozzles 174 for a venting operation”; see also fig. 6], comprising:
one inert gas tank [310],
one injection pipe [172] connecting the one inert gas tank [310] and the at least one interior zone [Fig. 6 showing (172) connecting (310) to at least one interior zone corresponding to image I of Minas],
one regulation system [302] for controlling a flow of the inert gas in the one injection pipe [0058 “diverter valve 326 connected to the vent line 322 and the fuel nozzles”; see also fig. 6 showing (326) is positioned to control the flow of inert gas], and
one diffuser [174] connected to the one inert gas tank [0058 “Introducing purge gas at this point allows the fuel array (e.g., the fuel manifold 172 and the fuel nozzles 174)”] and positioned in the at least one vessel [100] substantially coaxial with the cylindrical tubular body [0049 “plurality of fuel nozzles 174 within the combustion section 114 of the engine 100” see also 0028].It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Minas to have the at least one vessel delimiting the at least one interior zone and having a cylindrical tubular body and at least one injection system for injecting an inert gas into the at least one interior zone, comprising: one inert gas tank, one injection pipe connecting the one inert gas tank and the at least one interior zone, one regulation system for controlling a flow of the inert gas in the one injection pipe, and one diffuser connected to the one inert gas tank and positioned in the at least one outer pipe or the at least one vessel substantially coaxial with the cylindrical tubular body in view of the teachings of Miller where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures an aircraft where the vessel delimiting the interior zone has a cylindrical tubular body and at least one injection system for injecting an inert gas into the interior zone, which comprises one inert gas tank, one injection pipe connecting the one inert gas tank and the at least one interior zone, one regulation system for controlling a flow of the inert gas in the one injection pipe, and one diffuser connected to the one inert gas tank and positioned in the at least one outer pipe or the at least one vessel substantially coaxial with the cylindrical tubular body which improves hydrogen fuel systems in aircraft [Miller; 0023].
PNG
media_image1.png
591
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Image I; Minas fig. 57)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Minas teaches the aircraft as claimed in claim 1 and Minas teaches wherein the at least one ventilation system [at least 5732 and flowlines connected thereto ] comprises at least one ventilation pipe [0495 “flowlines”] which has at least one inlet leading into the at least one interior zone [see image I where clearly (5732) has an inlet into the interior zone] and an outlet leading into the outer zone [see image I where clearly (5732) has an outlet into the outer zone] of the at least one secondary structure [0495 “flowlines leading to the atmosphere outside of the aircraft 100 and/or the turbofan engine”], and at least one ventilation valve [5732] configured to occupy an open state [0495 “opens to discharge hydrogen”], in which the at least one ventilation valve [5732] allows a gas to leave the at least one interior zone [0511 “based on measurement data from the hydrogen sensors 5736 to reduce the hydrogen concentration within the compartment”], and a closed state [0530 “is not open”], in which the at least one ventilation valve [5732] prevents a gas from leaving the at least interior zone [0495 “valve 5732 can discharge hydrogen” where (5732) is also configured to not discharge hydrogen].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Minas teaches the aircraft as claimed in claim 2 and Minas teaches wherein the at least one ventilation valve [5732] is an autonomous ventilation valve configured to change states autonomously [0511 “the computing system 6302 is configured to control operation of the control valves 5722-5728, the ventilation devices 5730, the vent valves 5732, and the quick release panel actuators 5920 based on measurement data from the hydrogen sensors 5736”] and occupy the closed state when the at least one interior zone exhibits a pressure less than a given threshold and the open state when the at least one interior zone exhibits a pressure greater than or equal to the given threshold [0511 where it is described that (5732) operates based on measured data, someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that (5732) would be closed when the interior zone has a pressure less than a threshold and an open state with the interior zone has a pressure greater than or equal to a threshold].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Minas teaches the aircraft as claimed in claim 2 and Minas teaches wherein the at least one ventilation valve [5732] is a ventilation valve configured to be controlled by a remote element [0511 “computing system”].
Regarding Claim 6, modified Minas teaches the aircraft as claimed in claim 2 and Minas teaches wherein the at least one ventilation system [at least 5732 and flowlines connected thereto] comprises at least one extractor [5822] positioned in the at least one ventilation pipe [0499 “positioned in the exterior 5818 of the compartment”] and configured to generate a stream of gas toward the outlet [0499 “causes air to flow” see also 0521 where it is explained that (5822) is positioned in the ventilation system].
Regarding Claim 7, modified Minas teaches the aircraft as claimed in claim 1 and Miller teaches wherein the one regulation system [302] has at least one controlled valve [326] arranged on an injection circuit [fig. 3] and configured to permit a flow of inert gas into the one injection pipe [172] from the one inert gas tank [0058 “allow the purge gas to flow”].
Regarding Claim 8, modified Minas teaches the aircraft as claimed in claim 1 and Miller teaches wherein the one diffuser [174] comprises an annular tube [172; 0030 “fuel manifold 172 (not labeled in FIG. 2, see FIG. 3) of the combustion section 114”; see also 0028 “the combustion section 114, and the turbine section together define at least in part a core air flow path 121 extending from the annular inlet 108” where give the descriptions 172 would be an annular tube] connected to the one inert gas tank [fig. 3] and positioned in the vessel [100] substantially coaxial with the cylindrical tubular body [figs. 2 & 3; 0049 “plurality of fuel nozzles 174 within the combustion section 114 of the engine 100” see also 0028] and further comprises multiple injectors [where the diffuser 174 has multiple injectors (174) see fig. 3] distributed around a circumference of the annular tube [fig. 3 clearly showing that (174) is distributed around (172) which is the annular tube].
Claim(s) 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minas and Miller as applied to claim 2 and 4 above, and further in view of Minas et al. (US20240110524A1) hereinafter known as Minas’524.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Minas teaches the aircraft as claimed in claim 4 and miller teaches wherein the at least one hydrogen supplying device [Minas; 5510] further comprises at least one double-wall pipeline [400] having an inner pipe [412], an outer pipe [414] positioned around the inner pipe [0061 “circumscribes the inner wall”] and an interior zone located [424] between the inner and outer pipes [fig. 7], and at least one vessel [Minas; 5714] which delimits an interior zone [see image I above] and in which is positioned at least one inner element [Minas; fig. 57; showing an interior zone having at least on inner element], and wherein the at least one ventilation system [Minas; at least 5732 and flowlines connected thereto] comprises an inlet [Miller; 0061 “path 424 may also be fluidly coupled to the vent 324”], which leads into the interior zone of each double-wall pipeline [Miller; 0061 where it is explained that the inlet is connected to (424) of the double-wall pipeline] and at which an autonomous ventilation valve [Miller; 328] is positioned [Miller; fig. 3], and first and second inlets leading into the interior zone of each vessel [Minas; Fig. 57 showing a first and second inlet leading into the interior zone attached to valve 5732], a controllable ventilation valve [5732] being positioned at the second inlet [Minas; 0530 “open position”].Modified Minas does not explicitly teach an autonomous ventilation valve being positioned at the first inlet.However, Minas ‘524 teaches an autonomous ventilation valve [0088 “any suitable configurations”; 312 corresponding to 5732 of Minas] being positioned at the first inlet [pipeline attached to 312 corresponding to the inlet attached to valve 5732 of Minas].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Minas teaching with Minas’524 by combining at least one pressure relief pipe, which has a first end leading into an inner pipe that carries the hydrogen and a second end leading into the at least one ventilation pipe, and a pressure relief valve positioned at the at least one pressure relief pipe and configured to occupy a closed state when the hydrogen in the inner pipe exhibits a pressure less than or equal to a given threshold and an open state when the hydrogen in the inner pipe exhibits a pressure greater than the given threshold where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures an aircraft with an autonomous ventilation valve being positioned at the first inlet which improves operation of the vehicle [Minas’524; 0035].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Minas teaches the aircraft as claimed in claim 2 and Minas teaches wherein the at least one hydrogen supplying device [5510] comprises:
the at least one ventilation pipe [0495 “flowlines”].
Modified Minas does not explicitly teach at least one pressure relief pipe, which has a first end leading into an inner pipe that carries the hydrogen and a second end leading into the at least one ventilation pipe, and a pressure relief valve positioned at the at least one pressure relief pipe and configured to occupy a closed state when the hydrogen in the inner pipe exhibits a pressure less than or equal to a given threshold and an open state when the hydrogen in the inner pipe exhibits a pressure greater than the given threshold.
However, Minas’524 teaches at least one pressure relief pipe [fig. 5; pipe connected to (312)], which has a first end leading into an inner pipe [fig. 5; pipe connected to (306 & 218)] that carries the hydrogen [0060 “pump 218 is configured to provide a flow of the first portion of hydrogen fuel”]and a second end [fig. 5 the end of the pipe connected to (312)] leading into the at least one ventilation pipe [0087 “to outside of the aircraft 10 and/or turbofan engine 100” corresponding to the flowlines of Minas], and a pressure relief valve [312; 0088 “any suitable configurations”] positioned at the at least one pressure relief pipe [fig. 5] and configured to occupy a closed state [0017 “not open”] when the hydrogen in the inner pipe exhibits a pressure less than or equal to a given threshold [figs. 12 & 13; 0105 “a threshold value”] and an open state when the hydrogen in the inner pipe exhibits a pressure greater than the given threshold [0117-0118 “opening of the vent valve 312 reduces the pressure”].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Minas teaching with Minas’524 by combining at least one pressure relief pipe, which has a first end leading into an inner pipe that carries the hydrogen and a second end leading into the at least one ventilation pipe, and a pressure relief valve positioned at the at least one pressure relief pipe and configured to occupy a closed state when the hydrogen in the inner pipe exhibits a pressure less than or equal to a given threshold and an open state when the hydrogen in the inner pipe exhibits a pressure greater than the given threshold where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures an aircraft with at least one pressure relief pipe, which has a first end leading into an inner pipe that carries the hydrogen and a second end leading into the at least one ventilation pipe, and a pressure relief valve positioned at the at least one pressure relief pipe and configured to occupy a closed state when the hydrogen in the inner pipe exhibits a pressure less than or equal to a given threshold and an open state when the hydrogen in the inner pipe exhibits a pressure greater than the given threshold which improves operation of the vehicle [Minas’524; 0035].
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minas and Miller as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Bokade et al. (US20240076044A1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Minas teaches the aircraft as claimed in claim 8 and Miller teaches wherein the annular tube [172] has an axis of revolution [101] and wherein the multiple injectors [174] are configured to inject the inert gas along directions forming a given angle with the axis of revolution of the annular tube [0055 “purge gas may be used to push the hydrogen fuel through the fuel system 200 and out the fuel nozzles 174 for a venting operation” given fig. 2 the flow gas would form a given angle with (101) of (172)] so as to obtain a stream [fig. 2 see arrows which would be indicative of the stream from (174)] around the axis of revolution [101] of the annular tube [172], inside the vessel [100].
Modified Minas does not explicitly teach the multiple injectors are configured to inject the inert gas along directions forming a given angle with the axis of revolution of the annular tube so as to obtain a stream swirling around the axis of revolution of the annular tube, inside the vessel.
However, Bokade teaches the multiple injectors [336 corresponding to 174 of Miller] are configured to inject the inert gas [0061 “steam” corresponding to purge gas of Minas] along directions forming a given angle with the axis of revolution of the annular tube [0062 “hot air distribution manifold” corresponding to 172 of Miller] so as to obtain a stream swirling [0062 “a swirl nozzle”] around the axis of revolution of the annular tube [hot air distribution manifold], inside the vessel [140 corresponding to 100 of Miller].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the modified Minas teaching with Bokade by combining the multiple injectors are configured to inject the inert gas along directions forming a given angle with the axis of revolution of the annular tube so as to obtain a stream swirling around the axis of revolution of the annular tube, inside the vessel where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results,
i.e. secures an airplane with multiple injectors configured to inject inert gas along directions forming a given angle with the axis of revolution of the annular tube so as to obtain a stream swirling around the axis of revolution of the annular tube, inside the vessel which is beneficial to the engine [Bokade; 0051].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam D Moore whose telephone number is (703)756-1932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 09:00AM-07:00PM (Eastern).
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571) 270-5054. 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.
/ADAM DORREL MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights