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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has added new claims 39-48. The restriction requirement is based on the Unity of Invention since this is a 371 case, however, with the addition of claims 39-48 the features in Group III are now recited in the claims to be examined with Group I. The Examiner also would like to note that Group I mistakenly included claim 19, which should have only been in Group II. Due to the amendment of claims to have the all of the features of the different Groups examined due to depending on Group I, the Examiner is withdrawing the restriction requirement, and is examining all of the claims.
Claims 22, 25-30, and 34-36 that were withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected Groups, have been rejoined and examined. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement among the Groups, as set forth in the Office action mailed on November 24, 2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 22, 25-30, and 34-36 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “first, second, and third sections” and “the sections”, where “the sections” is unclear if all of the first, second, and third sections are being limited. To clarify, the Examiner recommends changing “the sections” to “the first, second, and third sections”.
Claim 9 recites “the three sections”, and is recommended to recite “the first, second, and third sections” for common terminology in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “the lower opening in the bottom wall has a perimeter that conforms to the shape of, or it is sized to encompass or surround the shape of, the exhaust for the airflow from the heat exchanger”. Claim 1 already recited that “the first section housing the at least one heat exchanger and the at least one fan,” and “the ventilation space has a lower opening in a bottom wall of the housing and an upper opening in a top wall of the housing for allowing air to be vented from the bottom to the top of the ventilation space”. In addition, claim 1 recites “the sections separated from one another by internal walls of the housing”, where the ventilation space is in the second section and the first section has the at least one heat exchanger. It is unclear how the “lower opening in the bottom wall” that is part of the “ventilation space” in the second section has “a perimeter that conforms to the shape of, or it is sized to encompass or surround the shape of, the exhaust for the airflow from the heat exchanger” that is in the first section. “Exhaust for the airflow from the heat exchanger” is considered as the outlet of the heat exchanger, and therefore, it is unclear how the “exhaust” from the heat exchanger in the first section is able to have “the lower opening in the bottom wall has a perimeter that conforms to the shape of, or it is sized to encompass or surround the shape of“ where the lower opening is part of the second section that “allows” “air to be vented from the bottom to the top of the ventilation space”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 41, 42, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by SADAKATA (U.S. Patent Publication US 2021/0102540 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SADAKATA discloses: an air compressor (11) comprising:
an air compression unit (11) with a low pressure air input (low pressure air input goes into (22)) and a high pressure air output (¶0040-¶0041);
a heat exchanger system (32) for cooling components and/or fluids of the air compressor (see Figure 13, ¶0046), the heat exchanger system comprising at least one heat exchanger (32) and at least one fan (30) for driving airflow through the at least one heat exchanger (see Figure 13);
an exhaust for the airflow from the heat exchanger (C ) (see Figure 13);
an air intake for the one or more fan (see Figure 13, where the intake for the fan is via (A, B) dotted arrows); and
a housing for containing the air compression unit and the heat exchanger system (see Figure 13);
wherein:
the housing comprises first, second and third sections (see Figure 13), the sections separated from one another by internal walls of the housing (see marked up Figure 13 of SADAKATA),the first section housing the at least one heat exchanger and the at least one fan (see Figure 13, where the first section is at the top and includes (30, 32)), the second section being a ventilation space (see Figure 13, where the ventilation space is shown with the path labeled E) and the third section being a compartment that houses the air compression unit (see Figure 13, where the third section is the lower section in Figure 13 that has the air compression unit (11)); and
the ventilation space has a lower opening in a wall of the housing (see Figure 13, where the lower opening is A or E that is at a lower part of the housing wall) and an upper opening in a top wall of the housing for allowing air to be vented (see Figure 13 that shows an upper opening with arrows that allows for air to be vented).
SADAKATA discloses that the ventilation space has a lower opening in the side wall of the housing, and therefore, fails to disclose that the ventilation space has a lower opening in a bottom wall of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ventilation space has a lower opening in a bottom wall of the housing, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, especially since SADAKATA discloses having the air enter in the lower part of the housing.
PNG
media_image1.png
432
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 41, SADAKATA discloses: the third section provides a service space for the air compression unit (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 42, SADAKATA discloses: the service space has a ventilation air intake (see Marked up Figure 13 of SADAKATA) and a ventilation air outlet (see Marked up Figure 13 of SADAKATA), at least one of which is provided with a ventilation fan (45).
Regarding claim 46, SADAKATA discloses the claimed invention where the second section is adjacent to the first and third sections, and therefore, fails to disclose the second section is between the first and third sections.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the second section between the first and third sections, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 47, SADAKATA discloses: the air compressor has an air intake (see Marked up Figure 13 of SADAKATA) for a service space within it and an air outlet (see Marked up Figure 13 of SADAKATA) as well for that service space, the air inlet and the air outlet being positioned on different sides of the air compressor (see Figure 13 that shows that the air inlet and air outlet are on different sides of the air compressor).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SADAKATA in view of KUHLENSCHMIDT (U.S. Patent 2,769,320).
Regarding claim 2, SADAKATA discloses: the claimed invention, however, fails to specifically disclose the lower opening in the bottom wall has a perimeter that conforms to the shape of, or it is sized to encompass or surround the shape of, the exhaust for the airflow from the heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 2, KUHLENSCHMIDT teaches: the lower opening in the bottom wall (27) has a perimeter that conforms to the shape of, or it is sized to encompass or surround the shape of, the exhaust for the airflow from the heat exchanger (15) (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the lower opening in the bottom wall has a perimeter that conforms to the shape of, or it is sized to encompass or surround the shape of, the exhaust for the airflow from the heat exchanger in the air compressor of SADAKATA, in order to provide proper flow from the heat exchanger. Furthermore, utilizing the size or shape of the heat exchanger for the lower opening, is well-known in the art as evidence by KUHLENSCHMIDT, and provides predictable results (i.e. unrestricted air flow allowing for better heat exchange due to no stagnate locations in the heat exchanger).
Regarding claim 11, SADAKATA discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose the internal wall separating two or more of the three sections is thermally insulated.
Regarding claim 11, KUHLENSCHMIDT teaches: internal wall (11) separating two or more of the three sections (see Figure 1, where the internal wall separates the ventilation space that is in the second section from the air compressor unit (20) in the third section) is thermally insulated (see Figure 1, Column 2, lines 34-43).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the internal wall separating two or more of the three sections is thermally insulated in the air compressor of SADAKATA, in order to protect the two sections from heat (see Column 2, lines 34-43 of KUHLENSCHMIDT).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SADAKATA in view of CHIYOUSE (Japanese Patent Publication JP 2003-035260 A, a machine translation was provided with the foreign reference in the IDS filed on 4/29/2024, and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 9, SADAKATA discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose the three sections of the housing are linearly distributed along the length of the housing.
Regarding claim 9, CHIYOUSE teaches: the three sections of the housing are linearly distributed along the length of the housing (see marked up Figure 1b of CHIYOUSE, the Examiner would like to note that the claim does not recite that they are both linearly and sequentially distributed along the length of the housing, where CHIYOUSE discloses that they are linearly distributed along the length, thereby meeting the claim limitations).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the three sections of the housing are linearly distributed along the length of the housing in the air compressor of SADAKATA, since a rearrangement of parts requires only routine skill in the art, as well as, CHIYOUSE teaches a linearly distributed configuration for the three sections.
PNG
media_image2.png
276
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SADAKATA in view of SHEN (Chinese Patent Publication CN 205327390 U, a machine translation is provided in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claim 13, SADAKATA discloses: the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose the housing is 8ft (2.44m) wide and 20ft (6.1 m) long, with twistlock fittings in each of the eight corners for hoisting, stacking, and securing to other containers, air compressors or the deck or hull of a ship or platform.
Regarding claim 13, SHEN teaches: with twistlock fittings (72, 82) for hoisting, stacking, and securing to other containers, air compressors or the deck or hull of a ship or platform (see Page 3, and Figures 2-4).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the housing be 8ft (2.44m) wide and 20ft (6.1 m) long, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, there is no criticality for this specific size and shape, where one having ordinary skill in the art is capable of placing components of the air compressor in a housing that would meet this desired shape.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the housing with twistlock fittings in each of the eight corners for hoisting, stacking, and securing to other containers, air compressors or the deck or hull of a ship or platform in the air compressor of SADAKATA, in order to aid in mounting, hoisting, and stacking the different air compressors together. Furthermore, utilizing twistlock fittings is known by SHEN for the purpose of moving the air compressor (see Page 3 of SHEN). SHEN discloses four fittings and not eight, however, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize adding fittings to all sides of the housing has the benefits of balancing when hoisting the air compressor, as well as, allow for greater flexibility when moving the air compressor.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SADAKATA in view of AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art, see current specification, the references below are to the Patent Publication US 2024/0392769 A1) and BUSHNELL (U.S. Patent 9,233,791 B2).
SADAKATA discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose one or more walkway to either or both sides of the housing and/or to a rear and/or front of the housing, wherein the walkways are made with decks of expanded metal mesh, or otherwise perforated sheeting, or perforated fibreglass sheets.
Regarding claim 16, AAPA teaches: one or more walkway to either or both sides of the housing (10) and/or to a rear and/or front of the housing (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have one or more walkway to either or both sides of the housing and/or to a rear and/or front of the housing in the air compressor of SADAKATA, in order to provide multiple units with serviceability access to the air compressors, as well as, a means to move around the air compressors to get to different parts of the ship.
The modified air compressor of SADAKATA/ AAPA discloses the claimed invention, however, fail to disclose the walkways are made with decks of expanded metal mesh, or otherwise perforated sheeting, or perforated fibreglass sheets.
Regarding claim 16, BUSHNELL teaches: the walkways are made with decks of expanded metal mesh, or otherwise perforated sheeting, or perforated fibreglass sheets (see Figures 4-10 and 11 that shows perorated sheeting).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the walkways are made with decks of expanded metal mesh, or otherwise perforated sheeting, or perforated fibreglass sheets in the modified air compressor of SADAKATA/AAPA, in order to provide cooling and air flow around the bottom of the air compressors.
Claims 27, 29, 30, 34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMAMOTO (WIPO Publication WO-2019-1600056 A1, a machine translation is provided with the WIPO Publication and is utilized in the rejection below) in view of AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art, see current specification, the references below are to the Patent Publication US 2024/0392769 A1).
Regarding claim 27, YAMAMOTO discloses: a platform (see Figures 1-4 and 15-16) having a plurality of air compressors (4a, 4b, 4c, 15) arranged thereon (see Figures 1-4 and 15-16), each air compressor having a service access space (see Figures 2, 15, and 16 that shows each air compressor has a service access space and is able to be slide out easily), the plurality of air compressors being formed into at least a stack (see Figures 1, 2, 15, and 16 that shows a stack of 3 air compressors (4a, 4b, 4c)), the stacks having an upper unit and a lower unit (see Figures 2, 15, and 16, that shows an upper and lower unit), the upper unit being an air compressor (see Figures 1, 2, 15, and 16, where (4a, 4b) are considered as one of the upper units), and the lower unit being an air compressor in one of the stacks and either an air compressor or an air filter unit in the other stack (see Figures 1, 2, 15, and 16, where the lower unit can be either an air compressor (4b, 4c) or the filter (5c)).
YAMAMOTO fails to disclose at least two stacks.
AAPA discloses multiple air compressors in a stack (10) on the platform of a ship (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have at least two stacks in the platform of YAMAMOTO, since requiring multiple air compressors is known, as evidence by AAPA. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have at least two stacks, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 29, AAPA further teaches: the platform is the deck of a ship (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 30, AAPA further teaches: there are at least six stacks (see Figure 1), the six stacks being arranged in a regular array on the platform (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 34, YAMAMOTO further discloses: the stacks in the regular array have air intakes for their heat exchangers at their short ends (see Figure 2 that shows the air intakes at the short end of (70), with the stacks with an air compressor at the top and an air filter unit at the bottom (as discussed above each stack is considered to have an air compressor (4a) at the top with an air filter unit (5b, 5c) at the bottom (see Figure 1) or an air compressor (4a, 4b) at the top with an air filter unit (5c) at the bottom (see Figure 1)).
Regarding claim 34, AAPA further teaches: the stacks have their short ends that face away from each other in the rows (see Figure 1), with at least one of the two stacks in the central column (see Figure 1 that shows the different stacks (10) is in a central column) (where YAMAMOTO already disclosed the stack with an air compressor at the top and an air filter unit at the bottom).
Regarding claim 36, YAMAMOTO discloses: access to the air compressors in the stacks (see Figures 2, 4, 15, and 16 that shows the air compressors having access to them).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the front most stacks are positioned with their front ends at least a full air compressor length from a forward wall of the platform, defining an area of the platform in front of those front ends in the modified platform of YAMAMOTO/AAPA, in order to allow for access to the air compressor’s in a stack in the event that one of the air compressors or other components in the system need service.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SADAKATA in view of YAMAMOTO and in view of AAPA (Applicant Admitted Prior Art).
Regarding claim 39, SADAKATA discloses the air compressor of claim 1 (see above), however, fails to disclose a platform having a plurality of air compressors arranged thereon, each air compressor being an air compressor of claim 1 and having a service access space, the plurality of air compressors being formed into at least two stacks, the stacks having an upper unit and a lower unit, the upper unit being an air compressor, and the lower unit being an air compressor in one of the stacks and either an air compressor or an air filter unit in the other stack.
Regarding claim 39, YAMAMOTO teaches: a platform (see Figures 1-4 and 15-16) having a plurality of air compressors (4a, 4b, 4c, 15) arranged thereon (see Figures 1-4 and 15-16), each air compressor having a service access space (see Figures 2, 15, and 16 that shows each air compressor has a service access space and is able to be slide out easily), the plurality of air compressors being formed into at least a stack (see Figures 1, 2, 15, and 16 that shows a stack of 3 air compressors (4a, 4b, 4c)), the stacks having an upper unit and a lower unit (see Figures 2, 15, and 16, that shows an upper and lower unit), the upper unit being an air compressor (see Figures 1, 2, 15, and 16, where (4a, 4b) are considered as one of the upper units), and the lower unit being an air compressor in one of the stacks and either an air compressor or an air filter unit in the other stack (see Figures 1, 2, 15, and 16, where the lower unit can be either an air compressor (4b, 4c) or the filter (5c), since the upper unit would be (4a) and the lower unit can be an air compressor (4b, 4c) or an air filter (5c), where if the upper unit is air compressor (4b) the lower unit is either an air compressor (4c) or an air filter (5c)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a platform having a plurality of air compressors arranged thereon, having a service access space, the plurality of air compressors being formed into stacks, the stacks having an upper unit and a lower unit, the upper unit being an air compressor, and the lower unit being an air compressor in one of the stacks and either an air compressor or an air filter unit in the other stack in the platform of SADAKATA, since stacking multiple air compressors together is well known in the art, as evidence by YAMAMOTO and produce predictable results (i.e. the desired output from the air compressors).
The modified platform of SADAKATA/YAMAMOTO fails to disclose at least two stacks.
AAPA discloses multiple air compressors in a stack (10) on the platform of a ship (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have at least two stacks in the modified platform of SADAKATA/YAMAMOTO, since requiring multiple air compressors is known, as evidence by AAPA. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have at least two stacks, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SADAKATA in view of PORTER (U.S. Patent 4,562,791 A).
Regarding claim 43, SADAKATA discloses: the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose a chimney extends from the ventilation air outlet, external of the housing, and extends vertically upwards to a point at or above the top of the housing.
Regarding claim 43, PORTER teaches: a chimney (69a, 32) extends from the ventilation air outlet (see Figures 2 and 5-7), external of the housing (see Figures 2 and 5-7), and extends vertically upwards to a point at or above the top of the housing (see Figures 2 and 5-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a chimney extends from the ventilation air outlet, external of the housing, and extends vertically upwards to a point at or above the top of the housing in the air compressor of SADAKATA, since it requires only routine skill in the art to utilize improvements of moving the air to a desired location, as well as, provide additional cooling as the air goes through the chimney before exiting, as taught by PORTER, to improve the apparatus of air compressor due to design incentives of controlling the hot air exiting, as well as, cooling the hot air before releasing to the environment.
Regarding claim 44, PORTER further teaches: the chimney's top is chamfered at an angle from horizontal (see Figures 5-7 and chimney (69a)).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified air compressor of SADAKATA / PORTER as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of SMAILES (U.S. Patent Publication US 2020/0325905 A1).
The modified air compressor of SADAKATA / PORTER discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose louvres are provided at the top of the chimney to prevent or reduce the incidence of rainfall or other water entering the top of the chimney.
Regarding claim 45, SMAILES teaches: louvres (400) are provided to prevent or reduce the incidence of rainfall or other water entering the units (see Figures 12-16, ¶0071).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have louvres are provided at the top of the chimney to prevent or reduce the incidence of rainfall or other water entering the top of the chimney in the modified air compressor of SADAKATA / PORTER, in order to prevent water from entering the chimney and thereby entering into the air compressor (see ¶0071 of SMAILES).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SADAKATA in view of YAMAMOTO.
R SADAKATA discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to specifically disclose one or more door or hatch is provided in one or each side of the housing for accessing an internal space of the housing, or for providing access to internal machinery of the air compressors
Regarding claim 48, YAMAMOTO teaches: one or more door (70) or hatch (see Figure 2 that shows one or more doors allowing access to the air compressors inside) is provided in one or each side of the housing for accessing an internal space of the housing (see Figure 2), or for providing access to internal machinery of the air compressors (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have one or more door or hatch is provided in one or each side of the housing for accessing an internal space of the housing, or for providing access to internal machinery of the air compressors in the air compressor of SADAKATA, in order to aid in maintainability of the air compressors (see Abstract of YAMAMOTO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 18, 20, 28, 35, and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19, 22, 25, and 26 are allowable.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746