DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-13 and 15, in the reply filed on 16 April 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
Applicant has not filed drawings in the current national stage application. Although drawings were filed in the international application, they must also be filed in the current application.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too long. It should be limited to approximately 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
i. Claims 1, 5, 11 and 15, “welding machine”, which has been interpreted as the combination of a welding machine, clamping apparatus, welding device, heating apparatus, handling apparatus and control device, or equivalents thereof. Each of these elements are further interpreted below. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 35; Figure 1; original claim 1).
ii. Claims 1 and 14, “clamping apparatus”, which has been interpreted as four clamping jaws, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 35).
iii. Claims 1, 3-4, 11-12 and 14-15, “welding device”, which has been interpreted as a heating plate, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 35).
iv. Claim 1, “heating apparatus”, which has been interpreted as a heating plate, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 35).
v. Claims 1 and 14, “handling apparatus”, which has been interpreted as two slides, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 35).
vi. Claims 1-5, 7, 11 and 14-15, “control device”, which has been interpreted as a computer, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 8).
vii. Claims 2 and 15, “storage apparatus”, which has been interpreted as a data carrier, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 10).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Additional limitations not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) may be listed here for clarity of the claim interpretation. Such claim limitations are:
viii. Claims 5 and 15, “display apparatus”, which has been not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the structural modifier “display”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7, 11 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, in claim 3, lines 3-4, the examiner suggests --the another attribute-- to use language consistent with parent claim 1, line 15. The use of consistent claim terminology improves the readability of the claims. A similar problem is found in claim 15, line 6.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, in claim 3, line 6, “at point” should be --[[at]] a point-- to correct the grammar. A similar problem is found in claim 15, line 8.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, in claim 7, line 6, “of printer-- should be --of a printer-- to correct the grammar. A similar problem is found in claim 15, line 21.
Regarding claim 11, line 7, there should be a semicolon rather than a period at the end of this line. A period is only allowed at the end of a claim. See MPEP 608.01(m).
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 1-13 and 15 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, line 13, there is no prior indication that the at least one object dataset represents a corresponding butt-welded joint. Additionally, the term “corresponding butt-welded joint” is not previously recited. Accordingly, this term does not appear to have sufficient antecedent basis. The examiner suggests --[[the]] a corresponding butt-welded joint--.
Regarding claim 3, “at least one weld parameter” is introduced in parent claim 1, line 14. It is unclear which of the “at least one weld parameter” is being referenced by “the weld parameter” in line 5 of claim 3. The examiner suggests --the at least one weld parameter-- in line 5.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, “at least one object data set” is introduced in parent claim 1, lines 12-13. The use of “the object datasets” in claim 6, line 4 is confusing because “at least one object data set” does not require plural data sets and because it is unclear which datasets of the at least one object data set are being referenced. The examiner suggests --the at least one object dataset-- in claim 6. A similar problem is found in claim 15, line 17.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, parent claim 1 recites a butt-welded joint in the preamble, a plurality of butt-welded joints in line 11, and a corresponding butt-welded joint in line 13. It is unclear which is being referenced by “the butt-welded joint” in claim 7, lines 4-5 and claim 7, line 6-7. The examiner suggests --the corresponding butt-welded joint-- in both instances. A similar problem is found in claim 15, lines 3-4, claim 15, line 19 and claim 15, line 25.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 15, a data model is introduced in parent claim 1. It is unclear if “a data model” in claim 8 is referencing the previously recited data model. The examiner suggests --[[a]] the data model has--. Similar issues are found in claims 9-10 and 15 with respect to “a data model”.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, parent claim 1 recites at least one object dataset. It is unclear which is being referenced by “the object dataset” in claim 8. The examiner suggests using --the at least one object dataset-- in claim 8. A similar problem is found in claim 15, lines 10-11 and claim 15, line 24.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, parent claim 1 recites two tube segments. It is unclear which is being referenced by “the tube segment” in claim 9. A similar problem is found in claim 15, line 25.
Regarding claim 9, parent claim 1 recites a butt-welded joint in the preamble, a plurality of butt-welded joints in line 11, and a corresponding butt-welded joint in line 13. It is unclear which is being referenced by “the butt-welded joint” in claim 9.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, in claim 9, line 5, it is unclear if the “associated object dataset” is one of the previously recited “at least one object dataset”. A similar problem is found in claim 15, line 26.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, in claim 11, lines 5-6, the examiner suggests --the data model of the tube system having the at least one tube and [[a]] the plurality of butt-welded joints;--. As written, it is unclear if “at least one tube” and “a plurality of butt-welded joints” reference the corresponding terms introduced in parent claim 1, line 11. Similar problems are found in claim 15, lines 29-30.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, parent claim 1 recites at least one weld parameter. It is unclear which is being referenced by “the weld parameter” in claim 11, line 9. The examiner suggests --the at least one weld parameter-- in claim 11. A similar problem is found in claim 15, line 7 and claim 15, line 33.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the production steps” in claim 11, lines 13-14. There is no prior recitation of “production steps”. Alternatively, it is unclear which previously recited steps should be interpreted as “the production steps”. In particular there is no clear explicit or implicit indication as to which recited steps fall within “the production steps” of claim 11. A similar problem is found in claim 15, lines 37-38.
Regarding claims 11 and 15, in claim 11, line 15, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the other attributes”. This term is not previously recited. A similar problem is found in claim 15, line 39.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear if “tube end cross sections” in line 4 is referencing the tube end cross sections introduced in parent claim 1. The examiner suggests --the tube end cross sections-- in claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sauron (US 5620625).
Regarding claim 1, Sauron teaches a method for producing a butt-welded joint between tube segments of a tube made of a weldable plastic material using a welding machine (Abstract; Figure 1), two tube segments each being held by a clamping apparatus of a welding device of the welding machine (Figures 1 and 3-7), welding contact surfaces of tube end cross sections of the tube segments being fused by means of a heating apparatus of the welding device and the welding contact surfaces subsequently being pressed against each other by a handling apparatus of the welding device using a joining pressure to form a butt-welded seam connecting the tube segments to each other in a joining plane (Figures 3-7; column 3, lines 42-57; column 9, lines 4-33; column 10, lines 1-12), the welding device being controlled by a control device of the welding machine (Figure 2; column 6, lines 13-51; column 8, lines 64-67; column 9, line 1 to column 10, line 12), characterized in that a data model of a tube system having at least one tube and a plurality of butt-welded joints (column 1, lines 22-35) are stored in the control device of the welding device (column 3, lines 1-21; column 7, line 59 to column 8, line 5), the data model comprising at least one object dataset representing the corresponding butt-welded joint and each having attributes (column 5, lines 17-50; column 7, line 59 to column 8, line 5), the control device detecting at least one weld parameter of the welding device as another attribute for the corresponding butt-welded joint and adding this weld parameter to the object dataset (column 7, lines 41-48; column 10, lines 13-23; column 11, lines 1-22), the another attribute being satisfied by ambient temperature.
Regarding claim 2, Sauron teaches the data model is stored in a storage apparatus of the control device before producing the butt-welded joint (Figure 2; column 6, lines 12-18; column 7, line 59 to column 8, line 5; column 8, line 50 to column 10, line 12).
Regarding claim 3, Sauron teaches the control device detects various weld parameters before producing the corresponding butt-welded joint, including any one of joining pressure, heating element temperature, ambient temperature, weld time or cooling time (column 5, lines 19-50; column 7, lines 41-67; column 8, lines 1-5; column 11, lines 1-46).
Regarding claim 4, Sauron teaches the control device controls the welding device as a function of the attributes of the object dataset, the attributes being a tube segment diameter, a tube wall thickness, a plastic material, a point of fabrication time, a producer's designation and/or a serial number (column 1, lines 53-55; column 4, lines 24-67; column 5, lines 6-13; column 7, lines 23-29; column 8, lines 44-63).
Regarding claim 9, Sauron teaches a data model having the tube segment and/or the butt-welded joint is used as an object having an associated object dataset (column 1, lines 43-67; column 2, lines 1-30; column 7, lines 49-67; column 8, lines 1-5). The limitation of “having the tube segment as an object having an associated object dataset” is satisfied by any stored attributes of the tube segment and the limitation of “having the butt-welded joint as an object having an associated object dataset” is satisfied by any stored attributes of the butt-welded joint.
Regarding claim 12, Sauron clearly teaches this additional limitation (column 4, lines 1-8; column 8, lines 66-67; column 9, lines 1-9; Figures 1 and 3).
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 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauron as applied to claims 1-4, 9 and 12 above, and further in view of McElroy (US 5013376).
Regarding claim 5, Sauron does not teach instructions for the welding machine addressed to a user and the data model are output by means of a display apparatus of the control device. In related butt-welding art, McElroy suggests outputting by means of a display a sequence of such instructions and parameters corresponding to a data model for the welding operation (column 4, lines 47-57; column 5, lines 60-63; column 6, lines 4-66). These features naturally allow the user to visually see the operating data and to perform manufacturing steps at appropriate times as required. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Sauron because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages suggested by the teachings of McElroy.
Regarding claim 11, Sauron teaches the method is executed in a sequence of the following steps: a) generating the data model of the tube system having at least one tube and a plurality of butt-welded joints (column 1, lines 22-31 and 43-67; column 2, lines 1-30); b) transferring and storing the data model in the control device (column 6, lines 12-28; column 7, line 49 to column 8, line 5); c) selecting the butt-welded joint to be welded (Figure 3); d) computing the weld parameter of the welding device via the control device based on the attributes of the corresponding object dataset (column 6, lines 47-51); f) controlling the welding device via the control device for executing the production steps (Abstract; Figures 1-7; column 3, lines 41-57; column 6, lines 12-51; column 8, line 60 to column 10, line 12); g) detecting the other attributes via the control device and storing them in the corresponding object dataset (column 1, lines 57-67; column 5, lines 17-50; column 7, lines 41-48; column 10, lines 13-23); h) transferring the corresponding object dataset or the data model via the control device (column 7, line 59 to column 8, line 5; column 8, lines 50-65). While Sauron does not teach e) outputting a sequence of instructions for the welding machine addressed to a user, such is suggested by McElroy as applied above.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauron in view of McElroy as applied to claims 5 and 11 above, and further in view of Szczesny (DE 102016117626 A1, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, McElroy was applied above for suggesting the use of a display to provide instructions and a data model to a user. McElroy further suggests the display can be an LCD screen (column 3, lines 61-66). However, McElroy does not recite the instructions being displayed in a first display area and the data model having the object datasets and the corresponding attributes being displayed in a second display area. In the related art of controlling a welding operation, Szczesny suggests providing instructions including the graphical positioning of elements to be welded and data model attributes in respective first and second display areas of a display (Figure 5; paragraphs 99-103). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in Sauron because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to suitably display the instructions and data model in respective display areas of a display screen as suggested by the above noted teachings of McElroy and Szczesny.
Regarding claim 8, Sauron does not teach a data model is used having graphic image data of the tube system which are supplemented by the object dataset. However, Szczesny suggests providing graphic image data of welded elements to provide clear direction as to how to position the welded element (Figure 5; paragraph 99). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in Sauron because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantage suggested by the teachings of Szczesny.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauron as applied to claims 1-4, 9 and 12 above, and further in view of Wünsche (WO 2019/057836 A1, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Sauron does not teach an adhesive label having a rendering of the corresponding object dataset of the butt-welded joint and/or having a rendering of a code representing this object dataset is output by means of printer, which is connected to the control device or has the control device, after the butt-welded joint has been produced. In related pipe welding art, Wünsche suggests printing an adhesive label corresponding to an object dataset of a welded joint and/or having a rendering of a code representing this dataset using a printer connected to a control device after welding (paragraphs 7-9, 26 and 31). This allows reduced time for documentation of the welding process and a clear indication close to the weld of the documentation stored in a database (paragraphs 5 and 31). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in Sauron because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages suggested by the teachings of Wünsche.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauron as applied to claims 1-4, 9 and 12 above, and further in view of Ferri (US 2016/0283613 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sauron does not teach a data model is used having a parts list of the tube system. In the related art of forming joined pipes, Ferri suggests generating a parts list of the various pipes required (paragraph 49). Such a parts list naturally provides the advantage of allowing a user to identify the pipes need for a given project. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in Sauron because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include information in the data model which allows a user to identify the pipes need for a given project as suggested by the teachings of Ferri.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauron as applied to claims 1-4, 9 and 12 above, and further in view of Szczesny.
Regarding claim 13, Sauron does not teach the data model is transferred by means of the control device using an external data network. However, in the related art of automated welding using parameters obtained by a controller, it is recognized a data model for welding may be transferred by means of a control device using an external data network. See Szczesny (paragraphs 8, 12, 18, 22-24, 60 and 94). Szczesny explains that such data may be retrieved from memory of a welding device, or alternatively, from a server connected to the welding device via an external network communication link (paragraphs 24, 60 and 94). Accordingly, these are art recognized suitable alternatives for storage of the data of the data model. Moreover, it is readily apparent from Szczesny that multiple devices may be controlled from an external control device in this manner (paragraph 11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Sauron because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an art recognized suitable method for transfer of the data model, or to allow for external control of multiple welding devices, as suggested by the above noted teachings of Szczesny.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauron in view of McElroy and Szczesny as applied to claims 6 and 8 above, and further in view of Wünsche and Ferri.
Regarding claim 15, Wünsche is applied as above in the rejection of claim 7. Szczesny is additionally applied as above in the rejection of claim 13. Ferri is applied as above in the rejection claim 10. Claim 15 combines several previously addressed limitations and is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 USC 112(f) interpretation, Applicant argues the limitations interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) by the examiner do not invoke such interpretation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The terms “machine”, “apparatus” and “device” do not appear to indicate any structure in the identified 35 USC 112(f) limitations. See MPEP 2181(I)(A). Moreover, the examiner maintains “welding”, “clamping”, “heating”, “handling”, “control” and “storage” indicate functions. Accordingly, these terms are not structural modifiers. There is no structural device called a “welding”, for example. Additionally, Applicant asserts that the identified limitations indicate structure, but does not provide any evidence as to what structure is indicated. The examiner is not aware of clear evidence that the identified limitations are used in the art as names for broad classes of structures which perform the corresponding functions, nor has Applicant provided any.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 pm.
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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights