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 Amendment
The amendment filed December 2nd, 2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1-9, 11, and 13 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The 112(b) rejection of claims 18-20 are maintained.
The rejections over Jun in view of Von Resch are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds for rejection follow.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,009,779 B2 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
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 1-3, 5-9, and 18-19 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, Applicant recites, “a first connector of a first type”, and “the first connector of the modular solar device”. It’s unclear if the second recitation of “the first connector of the modular solar device” corresponds to the first connector of a first type or if a different connector is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “a second connector of a second type”, and “the second connector of the modular solar device”. It’s unclear if the second recitation of “the second connector of the modular solar device” corresponds to the second connector of a second type of if a different connector is being introduced. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “and the connector of the first neighboring modular solar device”. Its unclear if this is referencing a connector of the second type of a first neighboring modular solar device already recited or if this is a different connector of the first neighboring modular solar device. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant recites, “the connector of the second neighboring modular solar device”. Its unclear if this is referencing the connector of the first type of the second neighboring modular solar device or if this is a different connector of the second neighboring modular solar device. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “a first connector of a first type”, and “the first connector of the first modular solar panel device”. Its unclear if the second recitation of “the first connector” corresponds to the first connector of a first type or a different first connector. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “and the second connector of the second modular solar panel device”. Its unclear if the second recitation of “the second connector” corresponds to the second connector of the second type or a different second connector. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “the second connector of the first modular solar panel device”. Its unclear if the second recitation of “the second connector” is referencing to the second connector of the second type or a different second connector. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 18, Applicant recites, “the first connector of a second modular solar panel device is configured to mate with a connector of a second additional modular solar panel device”. Its unclear if these are the same or different second modular solar panel devices. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant recites, “wherein the first connector of the first modular solar panel device and the second connector of the second modular solar panel device”. Its unclear if this passage is referencing the first connector of a first type of the first modular solar panel device or a different first connector. Its also unclear if the second connector of the second modular solar panel device is referencing the second connector of the second type or a different second connector. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8, 10-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (US 2021/0203274 A1) in view of Munson et al. (US 2010/0146734 A1).
In view of Claim 1, Jun teaches a modular solar device (Figure 8) comprising:
a solar panel (Figure 8, #10 & Paragraph 0128);
a housing (Paragraph 0130 – the unit module has a frame) containing circuitry coupled to the solar panel (Figure 4c – busbars and finger electrodes are visible on the surface of the solar panel); and
a first connector of a first type disposed on the housing; a second connector of a second type disposed on the housing (See Annotated Jun Figure 7, below);
wherein the first connector is configured to mate with a connector of the second type of a first neighboring modular solar device at a first side of the modular solar device and the second connector is configured to mate with a connector of the first type of a second neighboring solar modular device at a second side of the modular solar device (See Annotated Jun Figure 7, below);
Jun teaches that when the modular solar device is mated at the hinge sections which includes the first neighboring modular solar device and the second neighboring modular solar device that the modular device is freely rotatable with respect to the first neighboring modular solar device and the second neighboring modular solar device until the connectors of the modular solar device and the first neighboring modular solar device or the second neighboring modular solar device are tightened together (Fig. 8, #20 & Paragraph 0020, 0038, & 0133). Jun discloses that a removable locking pin (Fig. 8, #21) is inserted through aligned openings of the first connector of the modular solar device and the connector of the first neighboring modular solar device (Fig. 8b, #21 inserted through the aligned openings), this configuration is present on all the hinges (see Annotated Jun Fig. 7, below), thus its disclose the second connector of the modular solar device and the connector of the second neighboring module solar device are tightened together by a locking pin that is inserted through aligned openings of the second connector of the modular solar device and the connector of the second neighboring modular solar device (Paragraph 0134).
Jun does not disclose that the tightening of the removable locking pin is done via a rotation of said removable locking pin through adjacent aligned openings of the hinge.
Munson et al. discloses that a removable locking pin (Fig. 1, #4) can be tightened via rotation through adjacent aligned openings of a hinge (Fig. 1, #5-#6 – Paragraph 0059). Munson et al. discloses that this unique hinge structure provides stabilization at positions in which is moved to, between either an opened condition or a closed condition or partially thereby, and can hold a position stationary either fully or partially opened (Paragraph 0002). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the removable locking pin configuration of Munson in Jun’s modular solar device such that the tightening of the removable locking pin is done via a rotation of said removable locking pin through adjacent aligned openings of the hinge for the advantage of being able to provide stabilization at the various positions of Jun’s modular solar device.
Annotated Jun Figure 7
PNG
media_image1.png
686
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 2, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jun teaches the first connector of the first type of the modular solar device is disposed on the first side of the housing and the second connector of the second type of the modular solar device is disposed on the side of the housing (See Annotated Jun Figure 7, above).
In view of Claim 3, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jun teaches that the first connector and the second connector of the modular solar device each include a combination of fingers and slots, wherein the fingers have a central opening (Fig. 8a-b & Paragraph 0133-0134).
In view of Claim 8, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jun teaches an attachment device disposed on an exterior surface of the housing for attaching the modular solar device to an object (Figure 16 & Paragraph 0168-0169).
In view of Claim 10, Jun teaches a scalable solar panel array (Figure 7) comprising:
a plurality of modular solar device mechanically and electrically connected together (Figure 7-8, 14 & Paragraph 0162); each modular solar device comprising a first connector of a first type and a second connector of a second type (See Annotated Jun et al. Figure 7, below);
a plurality of pivot points formed by connections between the first connector of the first type and the second connector of the second type of neighboring modular solar device (Figure 7, #20);
wherein the plurality of modular solar devices are each movable about the plurality of pivot points and lockable into a fixed position with respect to an adjacent modular solar device (Figure 7 & Paragraph 0162).
Jun teaches that when the modular solar device is mated at the hinge sections which includes the first neighboring modular solar device and the second neighboring modular solar device that the modular device is freely rotatable with respect to the first neighboring modular solar device and the second neighboring modular solar device until the connectors of the modular solar device and the first neighboring modular solar device or the second neighboring modular solar device are tightened together (Fig. 8, #20 & Paragraph 0020, 0038, & 0133). Jun discloses that a removable locking pin (Fig. 8, #21) is inserted through aligned openings of the first connector of the modular solar device and the connector of the first neighboring modular solar device (Fig. 8b, #21 inserted through the aligned openings), this configuration is present on all the hinges (see Annotated Jun Fig. 7, below), thus its disclose the second connector of the modular solar device and the connector of the second neighboring module solar device are tightened together by a locking pin that is inserted through aligned openings of the second connector of the modular solar device and the connector of the second neighboring modular solar device (Paragraph 0134).
Jun does not disclose that the tightening of the removable locking pin is done via a rotation of said removable locking pin through adjacent aligned openings of the hinge.
Munson et al. discloses that a removable locking pin (Fig. 1, #4) can be tightened via rotation through adjacent aligned openings of a hinge (Fig. 1, #5-#6 – Paragraph 0059). Munson et al. discloses that this unique hinge structure provides stabilization at positions in which is moved to, between either an opened condition or a closed condition or partially thereby, and can hold a position stationary either fully or partially opened (Paragraph 0002). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the removable locking pin configuration of Munson in Jun’s modular solar device such that the tightening of the removable locking pin is done via a rotation of said removable locking pin through adjacent aligned openings of the hinge for the advantage of being able to provide stabilization at the various positions of Jun’s modular solar device.
Annotated Jun Figure 7
PNG
media_image2.png
713
654
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 11, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Jun teaches one modular solar device of the plurality of modules solar devices is moved with respect to the adjacent modular solar devices about a pivot point (Figure 14 & Paragraph 0038 & 0162). Munson et al. was relied upon to teach why the central openings would comprise the removable locking pins.
In view of Claim 12, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Jun teaches the first connector and the second connector include a combination of fingers and slots and the fingers each have a central opening that is aligned with neighboring fingers (See Annotated Jun Figure 8, above & Paragraph 0133). Munson et al. was relied upon to teach why it would be obvious to include the removable locking pin.
In view of Claim 17, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Jun teaches the plurality of modular solar devices are movable and locking into fixed positions to form a parabolic shape of the scalable solar panel (Figure 1b-c, 12a & 0063, 0186).
In view of Claim 18, Jun teaches a method of scaling a solar panel array (Figure 8) comprising:
providing a first modular solar panel device (Figure 7) including a solar panel (Figure 8, #10 & Paragraph 0128);
a housing (Paragraph 0130 – the unit module has a frame) containing circuitry coupled to the solar panel (Figure 4c – busbars and finger electrodes are visible on the surface of the solar panel); and
a first connector of a first type disposed on a first side of the housing; a second connector of a second type disposed on a second side of the housing (See Annotated Jun Figure 7, below);
connecting a second modular solar panel device including a solar panel (See Annotated Jun Figure 7, below), a housing (Paragraph 0130 – the unit module has a frame) containing circuitry coupled to the solar panel (Figure 4c – busbars and finger electrodes are visible on the surface of the solar panel);
a first connector of a first type disposed on a first side of the housing; a second connector of a second type disposed on a second side of the housing (See Annotated Jun Figure 7, below);
locking the first modular device to the second modular device with a locking pin that tightens a connection therebetween (Figure 10)
wherein the second connector of the first modular solar panel device is configured to mate with a connector of a first additional modular solar panel device of a first type, and the first connector of a second modular solar panel device is configured to mate with a connector of a second additional modular solar panel device of the second type thus allowing scaling of the solar panel array (Figure 7).
Jun teaches that when the modular solar device is mated at the hinge sections which includes the first neighboring modular solar device and the second neighboring modular solar device that the modular device is freely rotatable with respect to the first neighboring modular solar device and the second neighboring modular solar device until the connectors of the modular solar device and the first neighboring modular solar device or the second neighboring modular solar device are tightened together (Fig. 8, #20 & Paragraph 0020, 0038, & 0133). Jun discloses that a removable locking pin (Fig. 8, #21) is inserted through aligned openings of the first connector of the modular solar device and the connector of the first neighboring modular solar device (Fig. 8b, #21 inserted through the aligned openings), this configuration is present on all the hinges (see Annotated Jun Fig. 7, below), thus its disclose the second connector of the modular solar device and the connector of the second neighboring module solar device are tightened together by a locking pin that is inserted through aligned openings of the second connector of the modular solar device and the connector of the second neighboring modular solar device (Paragraph 0134).
Jun does not disclose that the tightening of the removable locking pin is done via a rotation of said removable locking pin through adjacent aligned openings of the hinge.
Munson et al. discloses that a removable locking pin (Fig. 1, #4) can be tightened via rotation through adjacent aligned openings of a hinge (Fig. 1, #5-#6 – Paragraph 0059). Munson et al. discloses that this unique hinge structure provides stabilization at positions in which is moved to, between either an opened condition or a closed condition or partially thereby, and can hold a position stationary either fully or partially opened (Paragraph 0002). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adopt the removable locking pin configuration of Munson in Jun’s modular solar device such that the tightening of the removable locking pin is done via a rotation of said removable locking pin through adjacent aligned openings of the hinge for the advantage of being able to provide stabilization at the various positions of Jun’s modular solar device.
Annotated Jun Figure 7
PNG
media_image3.png
686
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In view of Claim 19, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 18. Jun teaches the first connector and the second connector of the first and second modular solar panel device include a combination of fingers and slots, wherein the fingers each have a central opening that is aligned with neighboring fingers (Figs. 7-8). Munson et al. was relied upon to disclose why it would be obvious to include the removable locking pin in the central opening of Jun’s hinge.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (US 2021/0203274 A1) in view of Munson et al. (US 2010/0146734 A1) in view of Burton et al. (US 2018/0083480 A1).
In view of Claim 5, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 3. Jun does not teach the first type of connector includes one more finger and one more slot than the second type of connector.
Burton et al. teaches a first type of connector includes one more finger and one more slot (Figure 1, #28) that a second type of connector (Figure 1, #18) and that this configuration prevents free rotation of a hinge member around a support rod while maintaining a selected orientation relative to the support rod (Paragraph 0032). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to have a first type of connector includes one more finger and one more slot than the second type of connector as disclosed by Burton et al. in Jun’s modular solar device for the advantages of having a configuration prevent free rotation of a hinge member around a support rod while maintaining a selected orientation relative to the support rod.
In view of Claim 14, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Jun does not teach the first type of connector includes one more finger and one more slot than the second type of connector.
Burton et al. teaches a first type of connector includes one more finger and one more slot (Figure 1, #28) that a second type of connector (Figure 1, #18) and that this configuration prevents free rotation of a hinge member around a support rod while maintaining a selected orientation relative to the support rod (Paragraph 0032). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to have a first type of connector includes one more finger and one more slot than the second type of connector as disclosed by Burton et al. in Jun’s modular solar device for the advantages of having a configuration prevent free rotation of a hinge member around a support rod while maintaining a selected orientation relative to the support rod.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun (US 2021/0203274 A1) in view of Munson et al. (US 2010/0146734 A1) in view of Van Kerschaver et al. (US 2022/0085754 A1).
In view of Claim 6, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Jun does not disclose at least one cable connection interface coupled to the circuitry contained with the housing, the at least one cable connection interface comprising a receptacle accessible proximate an exterior surface of the housing.
Van Kerschaver et al. teaches at least one cable connection interface coupled to the circuitry contained with the housing, the at least one cable connection interface comprising a receptacle accessible proximate an exterior surface of the housing (Figure 6B-C - Paragraph 0044 & 0050) and that this advantageously simplifies the connection between adjoining solar panels (Paragraph 0049). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate at least one cable connection interface coupled to the circuitry contained with the housing, the at least one cable connection interface comprising a receptacle accessible proximate an exterior surface of the housing as disclosed by Van Kerschaver et al. in Jun’s modular solar device for the advantage of simplifying connecting adjoining solar panels.
In view of Claim 7, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 6. Van Kerschaver et al. teaches that the at least one cable connection interface allows a transfer of an electrical energy generated by the modular solar device (Paragraph 0053 – power is output from the device) and is used to power an external power consuming device (Paragraph 0068).
In view of Claim 9, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 1. Van Kerschaver et al. teaches a cable attached to housing that is configured to be plugged into a neighboring modular solar device to electrically couple the modular solar device with a neighboring modular solar device (Figure 6B-C - Paragraph 0044 & 0050) and that this advantageously simplifies the connection between adjoining solar panels (Paragraph 0049). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate a cable attached to housing that is configured to be plugged into a neighboring modular solar device to electrically couple the modular solar device with a neighboring modular solar device for the advantage of simplifying connecting adjoining solar panels.
In view of Claim 15, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 10. Jun does not disclose at least one cable connection interface coupled to the circuitry contained with the housing, the at least one cable connection interface comprising a receptacle accessible proximate an exterior surface of the housing.
Van Kerschaver et al. teaches at least one cable connection interface coupled to the circuitry contained with the housing, the at least one cable connection interface comprising a receptacle accessible proximate an exterior surface of the housing (Figure 6B-C - Paragraph 0044 & 0050) and that this advantageously simplifies the connection between adjoining solar panels (Paragraph 0049). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate at least one cable connection interface coupled to the circuitry contained with the housing, the at least one cable connection interface comprising a receptacle accessible proximate an exterior surface of the housing as disclosed by Van Kerschaver et al. in Jun’s modular solar device for the advantage of simplifying connecting adjoining solar panels.
In view of Claim 16, Jun and Munson et al. are relied upon for the reasons given above in addressing Claim 14. Van Kerschaver et al. teaches that the at least one cable connection interface allows a transfer of an electrical energy generated by the modular solar device (Paragraph 0053 – power is output from the device) and is used to power an external power consuming device (Paragraph 0068).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new grounds for rejection being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P MALLEY JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-1638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 571-272-1307. 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.
/DANIEL P MALLEY JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726