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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is an AIA application filed February 27, 2024.
The earliest effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as August 27, 2021, the date of the earliest priority application (United States provisional patent application serial number 63/237,864) for any claims which are fully supported under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) by the provisional application.
The same is similarly true for the following United States provisional, non-provisional, or international PCT patent application(s):
PCT international application number serial number PCT/US2022/041394 filed August 24, 2022.
The effective filing date of this AIA application is seen as February 27, 2024, the actual filing date, for any claims that are not fully supported by the foregoing provisional or non-provisional application(s).
The present application is also related to the applications giving rise to the following patent publication(s):
Office
Application
App. Date
Pub. #
Pub. Date
US
PCT/US22/41394
08/24/2022
WO 2023028158 A1
03/02/2023
The claims originally filed February 27, 2024 by preliminary amendment are entered, currently outstanding, and subject to examination.
This action is in response to the original filing of the same date.
The current status and history of the claims is summarized below:
Last Amendment/Response
Previously
Amended:
12 & 13
N/A
Cancelled:
none
N/A
Withdrawn:
none
N/A
Added:
none
N/A
Claims 1-22 are currently pending and outstanding.
Regarding the preliminary amendment:
Claims 12 and 13 were amended.
No claims were cancelled.
No claims were withdrawn.
No claims were added.
Claims 1-22 are currently outstanding and subject to examination.
This is a non-final action and is the first action on the merits.
Allowable subject matter is not indicated below.
Often, in the substance of the action below, formal matters are addressed first, claim rejections second, and any response to arguments third.
Special Definitions for Claim Language - MPEP § 2111.01(IV)
No special definitions as defined by MPEP § 2111.01(IV) are seen as present in the specification regarding the language used in the claims. Consequently, the words and phrases of the claims are given their plain meaning. MPEP §§ 2173.01, 2173.05(a), and 2111.01.
If special definitions are present, Applicant should bring those to the attention of the examiner and the prosecution history with its next response in a manner both specific and particular. In doing so, there will be no mistake, confusion, and/or ambiguity as to what constitutes the special definition(s). Per above, such special definitions must conform to the requirements of MPEP § 2111.01(IV).
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5455391 of Demesmaeker et al. (Demesmaeker) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0373267 of Radelet et al. (Radelet, US counterpart publication to international patent publication number WO 2020/061283 of Radelet et al. published March 26, 2020).
With respect to claim 1, Demesmaeker discloses a cable seal (Fig. 3) adapted to be mounted in a pocket of an enclosure (seen as so adapted), the cable seal comprising:
a volume of sealing gel including a length that extends along a first dimension between opposite first and second ends of the volume of sealing gel ("sealing material 5, such as a gel"),
a width that extends along a second dimension between opposite first and second sides of the volume of sealing gel (per real objects), and
a thickness that extends along a third dimension between first and second major faces of the volume of sealing gel (per real objects),
the first, second and third dimensions being perpendicular relative to one another (consistent with Fig. 3),
the length being longer than the width and the width being longer than the thickness (relative dimensions/size, see below);
first and second pressurization plates for pressurizing the volume of sealing gel ("first and second end pieces 6, 7 between which is positioned a sealing material"),
the volume of sealing gel being positioned between the first and second pressurization plates with the thickness of the volume of sealing gel extending between the first and second pressurization plates (per Fig. 3),
the first pressurization plate being positioned adjacent the first major face of the volume of sealing gel and the second pressurization plate being positioned adjacent the second major face of the volume of sealing gel (per Fig. 3); and
an actuator for forcing the first and second pressurization plates together in an orientation along the third dimension to cause the volume of sealing gel to be pressurized between the first and second pressurization plates "nut 11 being advanced along bolt 8",
the actuator including an axial member (bolt 8) that extends through the first and second pressurization plates along the third dimension that is tensioned as the volume of sealing gel is pressurized (per Fig. 3).
Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Here, size is not seen to change the sealing aspects of the device
Herein and below, this analysis is referred to as “relative dimensions/size”.
Demesmaeker as set forth above does not disclose:
the volume of sealing gel including first and second cable pass-through locations aligned along a reference line that extends along the first dimension;
the axial member being offset from the reference line an offset distance in a direction toward one of the first and second sides of the volume of sealing gel.
Radelet discloses a fiber optic cable sealing device that includes (Fig. 37):
the volume of sealing gel including first and second cable pass-through locations (the vertically aligned circles) aligned along a reference line that extends along the first dimension (seen as a vertical alignment line).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a sealing configuration along the lines of Radelet in a system according to Demesmaeker as set forth above in order to provide cable passage. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a cable seal) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the volume of sealing gel including first and second cable pass-through locations aligned along a reference line that extends along the first dimension.
The combination would also provide:
the axial member being offset from the reference line an offset distance in a direction toward one of the first and second sides of the volume of sealing gel.
As the axial member is not to interfere with the cabling, it would have to be from the reference line an offset distance in a direction toward one of the first and second sides of the volume of sealing gel.
With respect to claim 2, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 1, including one wherein
the offset distance is measured from the reference line to a centerline of the axial member, and
wherein the offset distance is at least 10 percent of the width of the volume of sealing gel.
Per the combination and relative dimensions/size.
With respect to claim 3, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 2, including one wherein
the offset distance is at least 15 percent of the width of the volume of sealing gel.
Relative dimensions/size.
With respect to claim 9, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 1, but not one wherein
the second end of the volume of sealing gel is rounded and wherein the first and second sides of the volume of sealing gel converge as the first and second sides extend from the first end toward the second end to provide the volume of sealing gel with a tapered configuration.
Changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant [in a patentable way, i.e., unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like per below]. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). This is particularly true when the specification gives little or no description of why such changes in shape are unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like. No disclosure is given in the application with regards to the patentable significance of the rounded end.
Herein, this point is referred to as “changes in shape”.
The shape of the seal is seen as a bespoke/tailor-made geometry that contributes nothing to the art, science, or progress thereof. It is seen as an arbitrary element well within the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 11, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 1, but not one wherein
at least one of the first and second pressurization plates includes a latch for retaining the cable seal in the pocket of the enclosure.
Radelet ¶ 64 provides:
"Latches 32 can be used to fasten the base 22 to the cover 24. A variety of types of latches are contemplated (e.g., snap lock, latches including screws, bolts, etc.)."
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use latches for securement along the lines of Radelet in a system according to Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above in order to ensure cable sealer fixation. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a cable seal) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
at least one of the first and second pressurization plates includes a latch for retaining the cable seal in the pocket of the enclosure.
With respect to claim 12, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 1, but not one wherein
the first side, the second side and the second end of the volume of sealing gel are exposed provide [sic] sealing with the enclosure about a perimeter of the volume of sealing gel, and
wherein the at least one of the first and second pressurization plates includes an extension that overlaps the first end of the volume of sealing gel.
Radelet Fig. 38 shows exposure at 36v. Further, Radelet shows at least one extension in Fig. 4 to the right of 22 and its lead line in the form of an upwardly projecting rim that has a curve at its left end.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have exposed seal edges and to have extensions along the lines of Radelet in a system according to Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above in order to provide better sealing and to better secure the seal. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a cable seal) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the first side, the second side and the second end of the volume of sealing gel are exposed provide [sic] sealing with the enclosure about a perimeter of the volume of sealing gel, and
wherein the at least one of the first and second pressurization plates includes an extension that overlaps the first end of the volume of sealing gel.
With respect to claim 13, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 1, wherein the first side,
the second side and the second end of the volume of sealing gel are exposed provide sealing with the enclosure about a perimeter of the volume of sealing gel, and
wherein the first and second pressurization plates respectively include first and second extensions that overlap one another and cover the first end of the volume of sealing gel.
Per claim 12, above.
With respect to claim 14, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 13 including one wherein
the second pressurization plate is adapted to interlock with the enclosure to prevent axial movement of the second pressurization plate during pressurization of the volume of sealing gel,
wherein the second extension of the second pressurization plate is positioned over the first extension of the first pressurization plate,
wherein the first extension of the first pressurization plate slides under second extension of the second pressurization plate as the volume of gel is pressurized by the actuator.
Per claim 12, operating extensions along the lines of Fig. 4 Radelet would provide these structures and relationships.
With respect to claim 15, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 14, but not one wherein
the first extension of the first pressurization plate is segmented and the second extension of the second pressurization plate is continuous.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention to separate and/or make separable individual segments of one or more of the pressure plate extensions as separation of integrated items are generally within the level of skill of one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant's invention. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
With respect to claim 16, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 14, including one wherein
the enclosure includes a housing having first and second housing pieces that cooperate to define an interior of the housing (Radelet Fig. 1),
wherein the pocket is defined by the first housing piece, and
wherein a perimeter seal for sealing between the first and second housing pieces extends about a perimeter of the housing and across the second extension of the second pressurization plate (Radelet Fig. 4 regarding the cable sealing devices 36 and the tops thereof).
With respect to claim 17, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 1, including one wherein
the volume of sealing gel includes a main body and an access portion coupled to the main body (Radelet, Fig. 37 at 36u and 412c, respectively),
the access portion defining a portion of the second cable pass-through location and being capable of being flexed away from the main body from a first position to a second position to provide lateral cable access to the second cable pass-through location (Id.).
Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above does not disclose:
the access portion including a deformable interlock portion that axially overlaps with a feature of at least one of the first and second pressurization plates to facilitate retaining the access portion in the first position when the volume of sealing gel is assembled between the first and second pressurization plates,
wherein the first and second pressurization plates include side access slots corresponding to the second cable pass-through location for allowing a cable to be inserted laterally into the second pass-through location when the cable access portion is flexed away from the main body to the second position, and
wherein when the volume of sealing gel is depressurized the cable access potion [sic] can be manually moved between the first and second positions relative to the main body and relative to the first and second pressurization plates.
Radelet Fig. 4 shows interlock portions 38, ¶ 67, "side protrusions 38 of adjacent cable sealing devices 36 extend over top ends of the divider walls 34".
Further, the access portion of the sealing gel is applicable to other components of Radelet and the combination of Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above, including the pressure plates.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide interlocks about the many surfaces of the sealing gel and to provide other components with access portions/paths along the lines of Radelet in a system according to Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above in order to better seal with and secure by the sealing gel and to provide access to the cable holding area. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a cable seal) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the access portion including a deformable interlock portion that axially overlaps with a feature of at least one of the first and second pressurization plates to facilitate retaining the access portion in the first position when the volume of sealing gel is assembled between the first and second pressurization plates,
wherein the first and second pressurization plates include side access slots corresponding to the second cable pass-through location for allowing a cable to be inserted laterally into the second pass-through location when the cable access portion is flexed away from the main body to the second position, and
wherein when the volume of sealing gel is depressurized the cable access potion [sic] can be manually moved between the first and second positions relative to the main body and relative to the first and second pressurization plates.
With respect to claim 18, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 17, including one wherein
the interlock portion includes a first section on the access portion and a second section on the main body portion.
Per claim 17, above.
With respect to claim 19, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 18, including one where
the interlock portion include a first interlock portion at the first major face of the volume of sealing gel adapted to interlock with the first pressurization plate and a second interlock portion at the second major face of the volume of sealing gel adapted to interlock with the second pressurization plate.
Per claim 17, above.
With respect to claim 20, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 9, but not one wherein
the volume of sealing gel includes a flap that extends about the second cable pass-through location and is located between the second cable pass-through location and the second end of the volume of sealing gel,
wherein at least a segment of a length of the flap can be removed to adjust the volume of the sealing gel.
Changes in shape. Relative dimensions/size.
With respect to claim 21, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 9, including one wherein
the volume of sealing gel includes a flap that extends about the second cable pass-through location and is located between the second cable pass-through location and the second end of the volume of sealing gel,
wherein the flap is removeable from a main body of the volume of sealing gel,
wherein when the flap is attached to the main body the volume of sealing gel is adapted to accommodate a first range of cable diameters at the second cable pass-through location, and
wherein when the flap is removed from the main body the volume of sealing gel is adapted to accommodate a second range of cable diameters at the second cable pass-through location.
Per claim 20, above. Changes in shape. Relative dimensions/size.
With respect to claim 22, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 9, including one wherein
the volume of sealing gel includes first and second flaps that each extend about the second cable pass-through location and are located between the second cable pass-through location and the second end of the volume of sealing gel,
wherein at least one of the first and second flaps is removeable from a main body of the volume of sealing gel,
wherein when the at least one flap is attached to the main body the volume of sealing gel is adapted to accommodate a first range of cable diameters at the second cable pass-through location, and
wherein when the at least one flap is removed from the main body the volume of sealing gel is adapted to accommodate a second range of cable diameters at the second cable pass-through location.
Per claim 20, above. Changes in shape. Relative dimensions/size.
Claims 4-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,419,838 of DiTullio (DiTullio).
With respect to claim 4, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 1, but not one wherein
the first pressurization plate includes a boss that surrounds the axial member, and
a first gusset that extends from the boss along the second dimension across the reference line.
DiTullio discloses a groundwater storage and distribution system having a gallery with a filtering means that includes (Fig. 1):
a centrally located locking lug 42 the has a gusset 48 providing structural integrity thereto.
The lug 42 is used as part of an enclosure 10.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a boss/lug with gussets along the lines of DiTullio in a system according to Demesmaeker in view of Radelet as set forth above in order to better secure the seal. This provides one rationale to combine the references.
Another completely independent and separately sufficient rationale arises as follows. In making the combination (above), the combining of prior art elements (listed above) according to known methods (per the references) to yield predictable results (a cable seal) would occur as each element merely performs the same function in combination as it does separately. MPEP § 2141(III). This additional rationale is a sufficient, a complete, and an explicitly-recognized rationale to combine the references and conclude that the claim is obvious both under the controlling KSR Supreme Court case and MPEP § 2141(III)(A). Current Office policy regarding the determination of obviousness is set forth in the Federal Register notice at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449 (Feb. 27, 2024).
Further, the combination would then provide:
the first pressurization plate includes a boss that surrounds the axial member, and
a first gusset that extends from the boss along the second dimension across the reference line.
With respect to claim 5, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet and DiTullio as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 4, but not one wherein
a majority of a length of the first gusset is located on an opposite side of the reference line from a centerline of the axial member.
Changes in shape are a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed positioning was significant [in a patentable way, i.e., unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like per below]. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B). This is particularly true when the specification gives little or no description of why such changes in shape are unique, unpredictable, advantageous, or the like. No disclosure is given in the application with regards to the patentable significance of the gusset position.
Herein, this point is referred to as “changes in shape”.
With respect to claim 6, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet and DiTullio as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 5, but not one further comprising
a second gusset that extends from the boss along the first dimension in a direction toward the first end of the volume of sealing gel and
a third gusset that extends from the boss along the first dimension in a direction toward the second end of the volume of sealing gel,
the first gusset being longer than each of the second and third gussets.
Mere duplication of parts has no distinguishing significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Duplicating gussets and changing their shape is not seen as providing anything but arbitrary elements well within the knowledge of the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 7, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet and DiTullio as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 6, including one wherein
the axial member is a bolt (bolt 8 of Demesmaeker) having threaded end that projects through the boss of the first pressurization plate and a head positioned at the second pressurization plate (per Fig. 3),
wherein the actuator includes a spring (10) mounted on the bolt that extends into the boss, and
wherein the actuator includes an actuation member threaded on the threaded end of the bolt with the spring captured between the actuation member and the first pressurization plate (Fig. 3),
wherein when the actuation member is threaded in a first direction on the bolt the actuation member compresses the spring causing the bolt to be tensioned and the first and second pressurization plates to be forced together to pressurize the volume of sealing gel (Fig. 3), and
wherein when the actuation member is threaded in a second direction on the bolt the spring is allowed to de-compress and the volume of sealing gel is de-pressurized (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 8, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet and DiTullio as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 6, wherein the reference line bisects the volume of sealing gel (per Fig. 37 of Radelet).
With respect to claim 10, Demesmaeker in view of Radelet and DiTullio as set forth above discloses the cable seal of claim 8, including one wherein
first and second cable pass-through locations are the only cable pass-through locations defined by the volume of sealing gel.
Radelet Fig. 37.
Conclusion
Applicant’s publication US 20240427100 A1 published December 26, 2024 is cited.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references have elements related to Applicant’s disclosure and/or claims or are otherwise associated with the other cited references, particularly with respect to cable seals, cable enclosures, and the like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JORDAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1571. The examiner can normally be reached most days 1000-1800 PACIFIC TIME ZONE (messages are returned).
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. While examiner does not examine over the phone (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.2), examiner is glad to clarify or discuss issues so long as it forwards prosecution.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas (Tom) HOLLWEG can be reached at (571) 270-1739. 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.
/Andrew Jordan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
V: (571) 270-1571 (Pacific time)
F: (571) 270-2571
April 3, 2026