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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Upon careful consideration of Applicant’s arguments, it is noted at the outset that many of the arguments rest upon the difference between a “draft shield” and a “balance” and what comprises Nufer’s “draft shield” as disclosed in Nufer versus what comprises the claimed “draft shield”. Examiner first notes that Applicant states on page 10 that the “Dictionary of Weighing Terms” is submitted with the remarks. This reference does not appear anywhere in the Examiner’s files, is not listed as a filed document in the USPTO Electronic Acknowledgment Receipt 07/31/2026 and therefore appears to be absent from the record.
Examiner submits for the record an instructional website from the University of Wisconsin that defines a draft shield as “removable glass shells or glass doors” that “prevents air currents from causing the balance pan to move”. In the present invention, the heat dissipator is arranged “outside the housing of the draft shield 3” (¶ [0038]). Similarly, the thermoelectric module 51 is outside the housing of the draft shield as can be seen in figure 3 (reference numeral 33 is defined as the “back wall” of draft shield housing, “[t]he housing of draft shield 3, in the shown exemplary embodiment, comprises front wall 31, top wall 32, back wall 33, and side doors 34 and 38” ¶ [0038], see also ¶ [0039]; “[a] thermoelectric module 51, for instance a Peltier module, is provided in functional connection, i.e., provided in a thermally conductive relationship, with second plate-shaped section 372 of heat transmission member 37 and heat dissipater 41. A distance body 52 having a high thermal conductivity of 10 W/(m.Math.K) or more, 20 W/(m.Math.K) or more, 50 W/(m.Math.K), 100 W/(m.Math.K) or more, or 200 W/(m.Math.K) or more is in the exemplary embodiment arranged between second plate-shaped section 372 of heat transmission member 37 and heat dissipator 41”). Therefore, the claimed housing of the draft shield makes up what one having ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a “draft shield” with the thermoelectric module and the heat dissipator attached to the outside of the housing. Applicant chooses to define this entire structure as “the draft shield” as described in the claim preamble. The claim construction reflects that the “draft shield” comprises the housing (what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a “draft shield”) and the additional elements. However, based on this claim construction Nufer meets the structural limitations of the claim and therefore meets Applicant’s definition of a “draft shield” as set forth in the claims and supported by the specification. Simply calling this entire collection of elements a “draft shield” and relying on it not being defined in the same manner in the prior art does not differentiate the claimed elements from the prior art if the prior art meets all of the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP §2111.01(IV); “[t]he specification may also include an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope. In both of these cases, "the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See also Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 857, 109 USPQ2d 1885, 1890-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that the term "gateway" should be given its ordinary and customary meaning of "a connection between different networks" because nothing in the specification indicated a clear intent to depart from that ordinary meaning); Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1367-68, 101 USPQ2d 1457, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (The asserted claims of the patent were directed to a tactile feedback system for video game controllers comprising a flexible pad with a plurality of actuators "attached to said pad." The court held that the claims were not limited to actuators attached to the external surface of the pad, even though the specification used the word "attached" when describing embodiments affixed to the external surface of the pad but the word "embedded" when describing embodiments affixed to the internal surface of the pad. The court explained that the plain and ordinary meaning of "attached" includes both external and internal attachments. Further, there is no clear and explicit statement in the specification to redefine "attached" or disavow the full scope of the term.).”
In this case, the specification seems to indicate that the Applicant is claiming an ordinary and customary “draft shield” with additional elements attached to it and calling the entire assembly a “draft shield”. Therefore, the prior art, which also discloses an ordinary and customary draft shield with additional elements attached to it, meets Applicant’s claim language describing the “draft shield” and therefore meets Applicant’s intended definition of a “draft shield”. Examiner suggests that rather than relying solely on how one interprets the term “draft shield”, Applicant should specify the structural cooperative relationships between these elements such that the prior art arrangement of elements no longer meets the claim limitations.
Turning now to Applicant’s specific arguments, Applicant argues in the paragraph spanning pages 8 and 9 that “Nufer locates its thermal structure in the balance while, by contrast, claim 1 locates it in the draft shield”. Examiner disagrees. First, as noted above, this argument relies on a very specific interpretation of “draft shield” that Applicant has not clearly set forth. Second, nothing in the claim locates the thermal structure “in” the draft shield and this is not supported by the figures and specification. The heat dissipator is claimed as “outside the housing” and the thermoelectric module is merely claimed as “in functional relationship with the heat transmission member and the heat dissipator”. As mapped in the rejection Nufer meets these claim limitations regardless of how one chooses to define a “draft shield” and a “balance”.
Applicant argues in the first full paragraph of page 9 through the last full paragraph of page 10 that “Nufer’s heat path also runs up a vertical wall, where the recited heat transmission member runs along a bottom” and again relies on the heat transmission member being “a component of the draft shield”. Examiner notes that “extending along and adjacent to the bottom side of the housing” does not preclude the heat transmission member from comprising a component which stands vertically upright.
Applicant does not specifically point to an element that makes up this bottom side nor is a surface corresponding to a “bottom side” shown in the figures. Indeed, the “floor” of the claimed structure appears to be plate-shaped section 371, which is not identified in the specification as “the bottom side” of the housing but rather a separate element. See ¶ [0039]; “[h]eat transmission member 37 comprises a first plate-shaped section 371 extending along a bottom side of draft shield 3, or weighing chamber 11”. One would reasonably gather from the specification that the “bottom side” of the draft shield housing isn’t a surface at all but rather the bottom area bound by the housing walls pictured. Nufer, in similar fashion, discloses a draft shield housing that rests on weighing compartment, directly analogous to Applicant’s housing resting on the plate-shaped section of the heat transmission member. Besides Nufer’s housing structure mapping exactly on to what is claimed as a housing and supported by the specification, Examiner notes that a “side” is not the same thing as a “surface” and every three dimensional object with a top side also has a bottom side, whether that side comprises a surface or merely a boundary.
Applicant argues in the paragraph spanning pages 10 and 11 and the first two paragraphs of page 11 that Nufer’s element 8 is an upright wall and does not meet the limitation of “a plate-shaped section extending along and adjacent to a bottom side”. Examiner disagrees for the reason articulated in the rejection. The “plate-shaped section” is not required to be horizontal. Merely that it “extends along” the bottom side. The fact the Nufer’s vertical plate rests on the bottom of the weighing chamber 7 and shares the lengthwise boundary with it fits the plain and ordinary meaning of “extends along”. Applicant has provided no evidence that “extends along” has any other ordinary and customary meaning that contradicts this assertion and appears to be mere speculation. Similarly, the term “adjacent” is broad and its accepted meaning is simply “nearby” according to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. Examiner maintains Nufer’s vertical plate 8 meets this limitation.
Applicant’s argument in the paragraph spanning pages 11-12 that Nufer’s cooling fins are located outside the weighing compartment rather than being a component of the draft shield arranged outside that draft shield’s housing and that Nufer’s heat sink is a component of the balance rather than the draft shield is not persuasive for the reasons given in the introductory remarks of pages 2-4 of this office action and rest solely on the plain and customary meaning of balance versus draft shield and which additional components make up the draft shield.
Applicant argues in the second full paragraph of page 12 that Nufer’s thermoelectric module is in thermal relationship with components of the balance housing rather than the draft shield. This argument is not persuasive because it again assumes an agreed upon definition of the draft shield housing versus the draft shield as defined by Applicant in its entirety. But more importantly, the claim requires a functional relationship, not a thermal relationship. All elements of Nufer’s scale are in a functional relationship so that it can work properly and achieve its intended purpose.
As to the dependent claims, Applicant argues on the top of page 13 that as it pertains to claim 3 that Nufer’s wall is not the first plate-shaped section therefore claim 3 is in error. Examiner maintains the position that Nufer’s plate-shaped section reads on the claim limitations for the reasons given above and therefore the rejection of claim 3 is also maintained.
Applicant argues in the second and third paragraphs of page 13 that as it pertains to claim 7, Nufer does not describe orientation of the cooling fins therefore the claim limitation that the ribs extend in the vertical direction. Examiner maintains the position that as shown in in figure 1, Nufer’s ribs have a vertical dimension and therefore they extend in the vertical direction. Applicant argues “that a fin occupies three dimensional establishes that it has extent in more than one direction”. It in fact establishes that it has extent in three directions and figure 1 clearly shows the vertical direction extent. Furthermore, it can also be argued that the fact that there are many fins stacked one above the other in the vertical direction likewise reads on the limitation “vertically extending ribs”.
As to claims 8 and 9, Applicant argues in the paragraph spanning pages 13 and 14 that Nufer does not disclose “the draft shield is a separate device”. Applicant appears to be asserting that the “measuring cell compartment” makes up the balance. As argued in the introductory remarks, the specification does not set forth a clear meaning of what makes up a draft shield nor does it disavow an ordinary and customary meaning of draft shield. The same hold true for what constitutes a balance. Examiner does not concede that a measuring cell compartment is synonymous with balance. Examiner would argue that a load cell and a weigh pan comprise a balance under broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, as it pertains to claim 8, the claim does not specify what the draft shield is separate from. All the elements of Nufer figure 1 make up a functional device that is separate from any other laboratory equipment. Applicant points to the specification which states “is a separate member and may be selectively attached to balance and removed from balance”. Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Lastly, Applicant argues in the paragraph spanning pages 15 and 16 that as it pertain to the §103 rejection of claim 16, Nufer cannot be combined with Flűckiger because the draft shield housing and the balance housing share some components. Examiner’s rejection relies upon Flückiger’s general teaching that it is known to make a draft shield separable and interchangeable from the remaining components of the balance. One having ordinary skill in the art could readily appreciate and infer that Nufer’s draft shield could be made separable from the balance if they so wished without inventive skill, and with minimal modification. Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nufer et al. (USPN 6,951,989; “Nufer”).
Regarding claim 1, Nufer discloses in figures 1-3 a draft shield for a balance (col. 1, lines 5-12), the draft shield comprising a housing (4) having a top side, a bottom side, and a back side (col. 4, lines 51-67; note the instant specification delineates “sides” from “walls”, see e.g. ¶ [0038], and this limitation appears to be met by the three-dimensional nature of the draft shield and is equivalent to the elements in the specification), a heat transmission member (8, 11) comprising at least a first plate-shaped section (8) extending along and adjacent to the bottom side of the housing (col. 5, lines 16-27, col. 6, lines 14-35, note bottom of wall 8 spans the lateral direction of the bottom of housing 4), a heat dissipator (17) arranged outside the housing (4) (col. 5, lines 24-27) and a thermoelectric module for driving a heat flux (16) from a member having a relatively lower temperature to a member having a relatively higher temperature in functional relationship with the heat transmission member (8, 11) and the heat dissipator (17) (col. 5, lines 28-42).
Regarding claim 2, Nufer discloses the heat transmission member (8, 11) comprises a second plate-shaped section (11) extending from the first plate-shaped section (8) of the heat transmission member (8, 11) and extending along the back side of the draft shield and extending from the first plate-shaped section (8) of the heat transmission member (8, 11) (col. 5, lines 16-27, col. 6, lines 14-35).
Regarding claim 3, Nufer discloses the first plate-shaped section (8) of the heat transmission member (8, 11) comprises at least one through opening (col. 5, lines 13-15, see opening in 8 through which cantilever 21 passes through).
Regarding claim 4, Nufer discloses the thermoelectric module for driving the heat flux (16) from the member having the relatively lower temperature to the member having the relatively higher temperature is a thermoelectric module (col. 5, lines 15-27).
Regarding claim 5, Nufer discloses the means for driving the heat flux (16) from the member having the relatively lower temperature to the member having the relatively higher temperature is a Peltier module (col. 5, lines 15-27).
Regarding claim 6, Nufer discloses the heat dissipator (17) comprises a plurality of ribs (col. 5, lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 7, Nufer discloses the plurality of ribs comprises a plurality of vertically extending ribs (col. 5, lines 24-27, note that by nature of the fins being three-dimensional, they inherently extend in in a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 8, Nufer discloses the draft shield is a separate device (col. 4, line 67 through col. 5, li ne 4; note that the construction of claim 1 defines the draft shield as those elements claimed and therefore as a separate device from the balance).
Regarding claim 9, Nufer discloses the draft shield is separate from the balance (18) (col. 4, line 67, through col. 5, line 4).
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 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer in view of Staender (US 2023/0043909).
Regarding claim 10, Nufer discloses all the limitations on claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Nufer discloses the heat flux driving means is a Peltier module, which one would understand to mean it needs a power source to function. While Nufer does not explicitly disclose that the power source is accessed via at least one electric contact member which is accessible from outside, the options for powering the Peltier module are finite and limited, namely, an external electrical contact for making a wired connected or an internal battery.
Nevertheless, it is known that when draft shields have electrical components integrated therein (motors, sensor and the like), they will typically have an electrical contact accessible from the outside. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Staender teaches a draft guard for balance which comprises at least one electrical contact member which is accessible from outside (¶¶ [0036]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to configure Nufer’s draft shield to have an external electrical interface such as the one taught by Staender for the purpose of allowing a wired electrical connection from the electronic components (such as the Nufer’s Peltier module) to a power source (Staender ¶ [0037]). Doing so provides the benefit of not worrying about battery lifetime or routine maintenance that requires disassembly and thus disruption of the device.
Regarding claim 11, Staender further teaches the at least one electric contact member is adapted and configured to be selectively connected to and disconnected from a matching counterpart electric contact member (¶¶ [0036]-[0037]).
The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 12, Nufer as modified by Staender discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
The combination also suggestions at least one of the at least one electric contact member is functionally connected to electric terminals of the means for driving a heat flux from a member having a relatively lower temperature to a member having a relatively higher temperature so as to be configured to provide power to the means for driving a heat flux from a member having a relatively lower temperature to a member having a relatively higher temperature through the at least one electric contact member because the options for powering Nufer’s Peltier module are finite and limited, namely, an external electrical contact for making a wired connected or an internal battery.
Furthermore, it is known that when draft shields have electrical components integrated therein (motors, sensor and the like), they will typically have an electrical contact accessible from the outside. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Staender teaches a draft guard for balance which comprises at least one electrical contact member which is accessible from outside (¶¶ [0036]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to configure Nufer’s draft shield to have an external electrical interface such as the one taught by Staender for the purpose of allowing a wired electrical connection from the electronic components (such as the Nufer’s Peltier module) to a power source (Staender ¶ [0037]). Doing so provides the benefit of not worrying about battery lifetime or routine maintenance that requires disassembly and thus disruption of the device.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer in view of Iiduka et al. (USPN 7,145,086; “Iiduka”).
Regarding claim 13, Nufer discloses all the limitations of claim 1 on which this claim depends.
Nufer is silent to at least one temperature sensor inside the housing of the draft shield.
In the same field of endeavor, Iiduka teaches in figures 1-4 a draft shield for a balance which solves the problem of eliminating large temperature gradients between the heat-generating components and the weighing chamber (col. 1, lines 11-16).
Iiduka further teaches at least one temperature sensor (13a) inside the housing of the draft shield (2) (col. 4, lines 36-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Iiduka’s temperature sensor inside Nufer’s draft shield housing for the purpose of determining when a temperature gradient is present in the weighing chamber (col. 2, lines 28-43).
Regarding claim 14, Nufer as modified by Iiduka disclose all the limitations of claim 13 on which this claim depends.
Iiduka further teaches the draft shield comprises a temperature control circuit (8) in functional connection with at least one of the at least one temperature sensor (13a) and a means for driving a heat flux from a member having a relatively lower temperature to a member having a relatively higher temperature (17, 19) (col. 4, lines 36-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to use Iiduka’s temperature sensor as a signal for a feedback mechanism to control Nufer’s heat flux driving means for the purpose of maintaining the temperature inside the weighing chamber to within a desired range (col. 5, lines 8-24).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer and Iiduka and further in view of Staender.
Regarding claim 15, Nufer and Iiduka disclose all the limitations of claim 13 on which this claim depends.
Nufer discloses the heat flux driving means is a Peltier module, which one would understand to mean it needs a power source to function. While Nufer does not explicitly disclose that the power source is accessed via at least one electric contact member which is accessible from outside, the options for powering the Peltier module are finite and limited, namely, an external electrical contact for making a wired connected or an internal battery.
Nevertheless, it is known that when draft shield have electrical components integrated therein (motors, sensor and the like), they will typically have an electrical contact accessible from the outside. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Staender teaches a draft guard for balance which comprises at least one electrical contact member which is accessible from outside (¶¶ [0036]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to configure Nufer’s draft shield to have an external electrical interface such as the one taught by Staender for the purpose of allowing a wired electrical connection from the electronic components (such as the Nufer’s Peltier module) to a power source (Staender ¶ [0037]). Doing so provides the benefit of not worrying about battery lifetime or routine maintenance that requires disassembly and thus disruption of the device.
Iiduka teaches the temperature sensor is connected to the heat flux driving means as part of a feedback loop to control the temperature in the weighing temperature (col. 5, lines 8-24). Therefore, it likewise would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to have Iiduka’s temperature sensor in electrical contact with the heat flux driving means for the purpose of maintaining the temperature inside the weighing chamber to within a desired range (col. 5, lines 8-24), thus resulting in the at least one temperature sensor being connected to at least one of the at least one electric contact member.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer in view of Flückiger et al. (USPN 6,566,614; “Flückiger”).
Regarding claim 16, Nufer discloses a weighing system comprising a balance (18) (col. 4, lines 67 through col. 5, line 4) and the draft shield of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the draft shield is separate from the balance (18) (col. 4, lines 67 through col. 5, line 4) and wherein, when the draft shield is attached to the balance (18), the draft shield encloses a weighing chamber including a weighing pan (3) of the balance (18) (col. 4, lines 51-67).
Nufer does not explicitly disclose the draft shield is adapted and configured to be selectively attached to and detached and removed from the balance.
In the same field of endeavor, Flückiger teaches in figures 1 and 2 a draft shield that is adapted and configured to be selectively attached to and detached and removed from the balance (col. 3, lines 27-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to engineer Nufer’s draft shield to be selectively attached and detached from Nufer’s balance as taught by Flückiger for the purpose of allowing for a module design that can accommodate the manufacture of draft shields of different functionalities (col. 1, lines 39-50).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nufer and Flückiger and further in view of Staender.
Regarding claim 17, Nufer and Flückiger disclose all the limitations of claim 16 on which this claim depends.
Nufer discloses the heat flux driving means is a Peltier module, which one would understand to mean it needs a power source to function. While Nufer does not explicitly disclose that the power source is accessed via at least one electric contact member which is accessible from outside, the options for powering the Peltier module are finite and limited, namely, an external electrical contact for making a wired connected or an internal battery.
Nevertheless, it is known that when draft shields have electrical components integrated therein (motors, sensor and the like), they will typically have an electrical contact accessible from the outside. For instance, in the same field of endeavor, Staender teaches a draft guard for balance which comprises at least one electrical contact member which is accessible from outside and the balance comprises an electric connection terminal which is adapted and configured to make electric contact with at least one of the at least one electric contact member of the draft shield and is further adapted and configured for providing power supply to an electrical accessory of the draft shield (¶¶ [0036]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to configure Nufer’s draft shield to have an external electrical interface such as the one taught by Staender for the purpose of allowing a wired electrical connection from the electronic components (such as the Nufer’s Peltier module) to a power source (Staender ¶ [0037]). Doing so provides the benefit of not worrying about battery lifetime or routine maintenance that requires disassembly and thus disruption of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP 2586115 discloses a draft shield comprising a cooling plate connected to a thermoelectric element for reducing the heat coming from the electronic elements of the balance.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is (571)270-5914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at (571) 272-4107. 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.
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights