DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “a plate-thickness center line of the web has a linear shape in cross section including a central axis of the wheel.”
The term “linear shape” renders the scope of claim 1 unclear. The ordinary meaning of “linear” suggests a straight line. However, the specification states that “linear shape” includes not only a perfect straight line, but also “a very gentle arc having a curvature radius of, for example, 1000 mm or more, or even a polygonal chain,” and further states that the plate-thickness center line may be “any line that can be recognized as a substantially straight line” in longitudinal section.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the claimed “linear shape” requires a straight line, a curved line having a curvature radius of 1000 mm or more, a curved line having some other curvature radius, a polygonal chain, or any shape subjectively recognizable as substantially straight. The phrase “very gentle arc” is relative, “for example, 1000 mm or more” does not establish a definite boundary if other radii may also qualify, and “recognized as a substantially straight line” does not identify an objective standard by which the metes and bounds of the claim can be determined. Therefore, the scope of “linear shape” is uncertain.
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1 and further recite an “angle” formed by the plate-thickness center line. Because claim 1’s “linear shape” may encompass a straight line, gentle arc, or polygonal chain, it is unclear how the claimed angle is determined for all structures within the scope of claim 1. Although the specification describes determining the angle using a tangent line at a center of the plate-thickness center line for a gentle curve and the longest line segment for a polygonal chain, claims 3 and 4 do not recite these measurement rules. Thus, the claims do not clearly identify whether the angle is measured from the entire line, a tangent, a line segment, the longest line segment, a chord, or another reference.
For these reasons, claims 1, 3, and 4 fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
SUGGESTED CORRECTION
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may amend claim 1 to clarify the meaning of “linear shape.” For example, Applicant may amend claim 1 to recite one of the following, as appropriate:
“the plate-thickness center line of the web is a straight line in the cross section including the central axis of the wheel”
or
“the plate-thickness center line of the web is a substantially straight line in the cross section including the central axis of the wheel, wherein the substantially straight line includes only a line having a curvature radius of 1000 mm or more”
or
“the plate-thickness center line of the web is a polygonal chain in the cross section including the central axis of the wheel, and the angle is measured using the longest line segment of the polygonal chain.”
Applicant may also amend claims 3 and 4 to specify how the angle is measured when the plate-thickness center line is curved or polygonal, or may limit the claims to a straight plate-thickness center line so that the angle measurement is unambiguous.
Claim 1 further recites:
“when a distance in the axial direction from one side face of both side faces of the rim in the axial direction, whichever is farther from the flange than the other side face, to an outer end of the plate-thickness center line is taken as ‘Pw’…”
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites a distance “Pw” from a side face of the rim to an “outer end of the plate-thickness center line.” However, the claim does not clearly identify how the “outer end” of the plate-thickness center line is determined where the web transitions into the rim through a connecting part, curved root, radius, or fillet. The specification describes an “outer end Aa” using an R stop and a virtual straight line passing through an outer circumference end of the web, but these measurement rules are not recited in claim 1. Because the claimed numerical ratio Pw/Wr depends on the location of the outer end, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
SUGGESTED CORRECTION
Applicant may amend claim 1 to incorporate the measurement convention from the specification. For example:
“wherein the outer end of the plate-thickness center line is a point at which the plate-thickness center line intersects a virtual straight line extending in the axial direction through an end of a connecting part on a web side, the connecting part connecting the web and the rim.”
Alternatively, Applicant may define the outer end by structural boundaries of the web and rim in a manner that permits Pw/Wr to be measured consistently.
Claim 5 recites:
“a face of the web on the flange side is connected to a face of the rim via a connecting part having an arc shape…”
Claim 5 recites that “a face of the web on the flange side is connected to a face of the rim via a connecting part.” The phrase “a face of the rim” does not identify which face of the rim is connected to the web. Because the rim includes multiple surfaces, including side faces in the axial direction, a tread, and root or inner surfaces adjacent the web, the claim does not clearly define the structural relationship of the connecting part.
SUGGESTED CORRECTION
Applicant may amend claim 5 to specify the particular rim face. For example:
“a face of the web on the flange side is connected to an inner circumferential face of the rim on the flange side via a connecting part…”
or
“a face of the web on the flange side is connected to a web-side root face of the rim via a connecting part…”
REFERENCES USED
Reference 1: EP 1 389 539 A1 to Pavco et al., “Railway wheel with balanced stress field.”
Reference 2: WO 2020/241401 A1 to Kato et al., “Wheel for railway vehicle.”
Reference 3: US 5,039,152 to Esaulov et al., “Railway Wheel.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 3.
────────────────────────────────────────
CLAIM 1 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
A wheel for a railway vehicle, the wheel comprising: a boss that forms an inner circumferential portion of the wheel and into which an axle of the railway vehicle is to be inserted; a rim that forms an outer circumferential portion of the wheel, the rim including: a tread to come into contact with a top surface of a rail on which the railway vehicle travels; and a flange that is connected to one end of the tread in an axial direction of the wheel and protrudes outward from the tread in a radial direction of the wheel; and a web that has an annular shape and connects the boss and the rim, wherein a center of the rim in the axial direction is positioned on the flange side with respect to a center of the boss in the axial direction, a plate-thickness center line of the web has a linear shape in cross section including a central axis of the wheel, and is inclined with respect to the radial direction in such a way as to be farther from the flange as the plate-thickness center line extends outward in the radial direction, and when a distance in the axial direction from one side face of both side faces of the rim in the axial direction, whichever is farther from the flange than the other side face, to an outer end of the plate-thickness center line is taken as “Pw”, the outer end being one end of both ends of the plate-thickness center line, whichever is positioned more outward from the other end in the radial direction, and a length of the rim in the axial direction is taken as “Wr”, Pw/Wr is less than 0.40.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 discloses a railway wheel having a wheel rim 1, a wheel plate 4, and a wheel hub 5. The wheel hub 5 corresponds to the claimed boss because hub 5 is the radially inner wheel portion surrounding the wheel rotational axis Z and is configured as the portion through which the railway axle is received. The wheel rim 1 corresponds to the claimed rim because rim 1 is the outer circumferential wheel portion and includes a rolling surface 2 and a flange 3.
The rolling surface 2 of Reference 1 corresponds to the claimed tread. Rolling surface 2 is the radially outer running surface of rim 1 and is the portion that contacts the rail during railway operation. Flange 3 corresponds to the claimed flange because flange 3 is provided on one axial side of rim 1 and protrudes radially outward relative to rolling surface 2.
Reference 1 discloses the claimed web because wheel plate 4 connects wheel rim 1 and wheel hub 5. Wheel plate 4 is annular because the disclosed railway wheel is a body of revolution about the wheel rotation axis Z, and the plate extends continuously around that axis between rim 1 and hub 5.
Reference 1 further discloses that the rim and hub are axially offset, as shown in its cross-sectional wheel embodiments. In the applied orientation, rim 1 is positioned such that the axial center of rim 1 is on the flange 3 side relative to the axial center of hub 5. This corresponds to the claimed requirement that the center of the rim in the axial direction is positioned on the flange side with respect to the center of the boss in the axial direction.
Reference 1 discloses a wheel plate 4 having straight-line portions and defined geometric transition points. Reference 1 identifies external edge 8, internal edge 9, rim width H1, transition point K, plane P1 through point K, straight line P2, straight line P3, and transition regions 6 and 7. The plate geometry is expressly designed by straight-line portions and arched transition portions. Thus, Reference 1 teaches a web/plate profile in which the load-carrying web portion may be defined by substantially straight linear portions extending between the rim and hub.
Reference 2 expressly teaches the same type of railway wheel architecture using reference numerals boss 10, rim 20, tread 21, flange 22, and web 30. Reference 2 further expressly teaches a plate-thickness center line A of web 30, where the plate-thickness center line A passes through midpoints between web side faces 31 and 32 from boss 10 to rim 20. Reference 2 teaches that plate-thickness center line A has a linear shape in a longitudinal cross section including central axis X, and that a linear shape includes a substantially straight line, a gentle arc, or a polygonal chain recognizable as substantially straight. Reference 2 also teaches that the linear plate-thickness center line reduces stress concentration because it does not include an inflection point.
It would have been obvious to characterize or implement the straight-section wheel plate 4 of Reference 1 using the plate-thickness center line A framework expressly taught by Reference 2. Both references are directed to railway wheels having a rim, hub/boss, and web/plate, and both address reducing wheel stress under mechanical and thermal loads. In the combined wheel, the mid-thickness centerline of web/plate 4 would be a linear or substantially linear line in cross section including the wheel axis.
Reference 1 further teaches the relevant web-to-rim axial positioning. Reference 1 identifies internal edge 9 on the flange side of rim 1 and external edge 8 on the side opposite flange 3. Reference 1 teaches that plane P1 passing through point K, which is at the transition of wheel plate 4 into the rim-side transition region 6, is spaced from internal edge 9 by a distance H2 equal to 0.4 to 0.65 times rim width H1. Because H1 is the full axial width of rim 1, the corresponding distance from external edge 8, i.e., the side face farther from flange 3, to plane P1 is 0.35 to 0.60 times H1. The lower portion of this range, for example 0.35 to less than 0.40, meets the claimed Pw/Wr less than 0.40 when the outer end of the plate-thickness center line is located at the rim-side transition of the web/plate.
Reference 1 therefore teaches a rim-side web position that overlaps the claimed Pw/Wr range. Selecting a value below 0.40 within the Reference 1 range would have been an obvious selection of a known result-effective web-position parameter because Reference 1 teaches that the wheel-plate form and its dimensional relationships distribute stress into a larger volume of the wheel structure, reduce stress peaks, and permit optimized wheel-plate dimensions and wheel weight.
Reference 1 also teaches the claimed inclination direction in the applied configuration. In the figures of Reference 1, the flange 3 is on the internal-edge 9 side, and the web/plate geometry extends from hub 5 toward rim 1 so that the rim-side web transition is located toward external edge 8, i.e., farther from flange 3. Thus, the centerline corresponding to the mid-thickness line of wheel plate 4 would be inclined with respect to the radial direction such that, as it extends outward in the radial direction toward rim 1, it becomes farther from flange 3.
To the extent Reference 1 does not expressly label a “plate-thickness center line,” Reference 2 supplies that explicit terminology and teaches applying a mid-thickness line A to a railway wheel web 30 connecting boss 10 and rim 20. The combined structure therefore includes a plate-thickness center line of the web, in a cross section including the central axis, having a linear shape and inclined in the claimed direction.
Accordingly, Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 renders obvious each limitation of claim 1.
MOTIVATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine Reference 1 and Reference 2 because both references address the same railway-wheel problem: designing the web/plate between the rim and hub/boss to withstand mechanical and thermal loading during railway operation and braking. Reference 1 teaches using dimensional placement of the wheel plate 4 relative to rim 1 and hub 5 to balance stress and reduce stress peaks. Reference 2 teaches using a linear plate-thickness center line A to reduce web stress concentration and improve tread-braking performance. A skilled artisan would have found it predictable to apply Reference 2’s explicit plate-thickness center line A concept to the straight-section web geometry of Reference 1 and to select the lower portion of Reference 1’s disclosed web-position range so that the rim-side outer end of the web centerline is located less than 0.40 of the rim width from the side face opposite the flange. This would have predictably provided a simple, low-stress, low-weight web geometry while maintaining the stress-balancing web placement taught by Reference 1.
────────────────────────────────────────
CLAIM 2 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The wheel according to claim 1, wherein Pw/Wr is 0.30 or more.
ANALYSIS
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further requires Pw/Wr of 0.30 or more. When combined with claim 1, the claimed range is 0.30 ≤ Pw/Wr < 0.40.
Reference 1 teaches that plane P1 through point K at the rim-side web transition is spaced from internal edge 9 by 0.4 to 0.65 times rim width H1. Because internal edge 9 is on the flange 3 side and external edge 8 is on the side farther from flange 3, this corresponds to a distance from external edge 8 to plane P1 of 0.35 to 0.60 times H1. The lower portion of this disclosed range includes values from 0.35 to less than 0.40. Those values satisfy both claim 1 and claim 2.
Reference 2 reinforces that the web position relative to the rim is a design parameter that may be selected according to braking specifications and wheel design needs. Reference 2 teaches that web position affects rim displacement and thermal stress. Accordingly, selection of a value in the overlapping range of 0.35 to less than 0.40 would have been an obvious optimization of a known dimensional parameter.
MOTIVATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to select Pw/Wr of 0.30 or more because Reference 1 teaches locating the rim-side web transition at a distance from the counter-flange external edge 8 that includes values above 0.30, and Reference 2 teaches that web position relative to rim width is a meaningful design parameter for controlling rim displacement and web thermal stress. Selecting a value of about 0.35 to less than 0.40 would have predictably maintained the stress-distribution benefits of Reference 1 while avoiding an excessively counter-flange-side web location.
────────────────────────────────────────
CLAIM 3 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The wheel according to claim 1, wherein an angle formed by the plate-thickness center line with the axial direction on a side opposite to the flange is 89° or less.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 teaches that wheel plate 4 includes straight-line portions P2 and P3 and that the web/plate geometry is angularly arranged between rim 1 and hub 5. In the applied configuration, the corresponding mid-thickness line of wheel plate 4 is inclined relative to the radial direction and therefore forms an angle with the axial direction.
Reference 2 expressly teaches measuring an angle of a plate-thickness center line A with respect to the axial direction. Reference 2 teaches that the angle is less than 90 degrees, and preferably 87 degrees or less, for a railway wheel web having a linear plate-thickness center line A. Reference 2 further teaches that the angle may be determined using the tangent at the center of the plate-thickness center line when the line is gently curved, or using the longest segment when the line is a polygonal chain.
Although Reference 2 measures the angle on its flange-side orientation, the angle formed between a straight or substantially straight web centerline and the axial direction is the same structural angular magnitude when applied to the opposite-side inclination of Reference 1. In the combined wheel, the plate-thickness center line is inclined away from flange 3 as it extends outward, so the claimed measurement is taken on the side opposite flange 3. Selecting an angle of 87 degrees, as expressly taught by Reference 2, satisfies claim 3’s requirement of 89 degrees or less.
MOTIVATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use an angle of 89 degrees or less because Reference 2 teaches that an angle less than 90 degrees and preferably 87 degrees or less improves the ability of the wheel to reduce rim displacement and thermal stress while maintaining web rigidity. Applying that angle to the straight-section web of Reference 1 would have been a predictable angular optimization of a known linear web geometry for the same railway wheel environment.
────────────────────────────────────────
CLAIM 4 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The wheel according to claim 3, wherein the angle is 85° or more.
ANALYSIS
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and further requires that the angle be 85 degrees or more. When combined with claim 3, the claimed range is 85 degrees to 89 degrees.
Reference 2 teaches examples having plate angles of 85 degrees and 87 degrees. Reference 2 also teaches that the plate-thickness center line angle is preferably less than 90 degrees, preferably 87 degrees or less, and preferably high enough to avoid excessive inclination. Thus, Reference 2 expressly teaches values within the claimed range, including 85 degrees and 87 degrees.
In the combined structure, the corresponding angle of the plate-thickness center line of web/plate 4 is selected within this known range. Such a selection would maintain the web close to radial orientation while still providing the claimed non-radial inclination away from the flange.
MOTIVATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use an angle of 85 degrees or more because Reference 2 teaches representative working examples at 85 degrees and 87 degrees and indicates that the angle should be selected to balance displacement reduction, thermal stress reduction, rigidity, and manufacturability. Selecting an angle within 85 degrees to 89 degrees would have predictably avoided an excessively inclined web while retaining the stress and displacement benefits of a non-radial linear centerline.
────────────────────────────────────────
CLAIM 5 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3
The wheel according to claim 1, wherein a face of the web on the flange side is connected to a face of the rim via a connecting part having an arc shape in cross section including the central axis of the wheel, and a curvature radius of the connecting part is 20 mm or more.
ANALYSIS
Reference 1 discloses that wheel plate 4 is connected to wheel rim 1 through transition region 6. Reference 1 further teaches that transition region 6 includes arched portions K2 and K3. These arched portions connect wheel plate 4 to rim 1 in the cross-sectional view of the railway wheel. Therefore, Reference 1 teaches a web-to-rim connecting part having an arc shape in cross section.
Reference 2 similarly discloses that web 30 has side faces 31 and 32 connected to rim 20 through arcs 41 and 42. The side face 31 is on the flange 22 side, and arc 41 connects side face 31 to rim 20. Thus, Reference 2 expressly confirms that, in the same type of railway wheel, the flange-side face of the web is connected to the rim by an arcuate connecting portion.
Reference 1 and Reference 2 do not require, in the applied combination, a curvature radius of 20 mm or more for the flange-side web-to-rim connecting part.
Reference 3 discloses a railway wheel having rim 1, disk 2, and hub 3. Disk 2 corresponds to the claimed web. Reference 3 teaches that disk 2 is conjugated with rim 1 and hub 3 by radius curves R. Reference 3 further teaches radius curve values such as 40 mm, 45 mm, and 60 mm for railway wheel embodiments. Each of these radii is greater than 20 mm.
It would have been obvious to apply the radius-curve teaching of Reference 3 to the arcuate web-to-rim connecting structure of Reference 1 and Reference 2. In the resulting wheel, the face of the web on the flange side is connected to the rim by an arcuate connecting part having a curvature radius of at least 20 mm.
MOTIVATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a curvature radius of 20 mm or more at the flange-side web-to-rim connection because Reference 3 teaches that radius curves R are used to conjugate the disk 2 with rim 1 and hub 3 in railway wheels and provides exemplary radii greater than 20 mm. The web-to-rim transition is a known stress-sensitive region. Increasing the radius of the arcuate connecting part would have predictably smoothed the transition between the web and rim, reduced local stress concentration, and improved fatigue and dynamic strength under vertical, lateral, and thermal loads. Because Reference 1 and Reference 2 already use arcuate web-to-rim transitions, applying Reference 3’s radius values would have required only routine selection of a known radius size for the same structural purpose.
────────────────────────────────────────
CLAIM 6 - REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2
The wheel according to claim 1, wherein the web has a minimum plate thickness at a position inward from the outer end of the plate-thickness center line in the radial direction, and a plate thickness of the web decreases as the web extends outward in the radial direction until the position of the minimum plate thickness.
ANALYSIS
Reference 2 expressly teaches this limitation. Reference 2 discloses web 30 and plate-thickness center line A having outer end Aa. Reference 2 teaches that the plate thickness of web 30 decreases as web 30 extends outward in the radial direction until a position inward from the outer circumference end of the web, and that the plate thickness is minimized at that position. Reference 2 further teaches that the minimum-thickness position may be located near the outer end of the plate-thickness center line and may correspond to a position where bending stress from rail loading is minimized.
In the combined wheel of Reference 1 and Reference 2, the web/plate is provided with a thickness profile in which the plate thickness decreases outward until reaching a minimum at a position radially inward from the outer end of the plate-thickness center line. This satisfies both limitations of claim 6.
MOTIVATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Reference 2’s minimum-thickness web profile into the web/plate of Reference 1 because Reference 2 teaches that positioning the minimum plate thickness near a radially inward location from the outer end of the web corresponds to a lower bending-stress region. A skilled artisan would have recognized that reducing thickness toward a lower-stress region reduces weight while maintaining fatigue resistance and durability. The claimed thickness profile would therefore have been a predictable stress-based optimization of railway wheel web geometry.
────────────────────────────────────────
CONCLUSION
US 2023/0294453 A1 and its related EP 4 238 781 A1 family member appear to be technically closer than the applied references because they disclose a rim center closer to the flange than the boss center, a linear plate-thickness center line inclined away from the flange as it extends outward, and a Pw/Wr framework. However, that family appears to be commonly owned by Nippon Steel and is vulnerable to removal under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). It is therefore not used in this draft rejection.
US 2022/0212494 A1, EP 3 978 265 A1, and CN 113891806 A were not separately used because they correspond to the same family as WO 2020/241401 A1. WO 2020/241401 A1 is the preferred member of that family for this rejection because it published before the present application’s asserted priority date and provides the same technical disclosure in a cleaner prior-art posture.
WO 1990/09290 A1 was not separately used because US 5,039,152 is the U.S. counterpart and provides the same radius-curve teachings in English.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights