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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in DE on 06/22/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE102023116461.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Reference character “33” has been used to designate both a washer (last paragraph of page 14) and a regulating nut (first paragraph of page 16).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 13, “40” should read ---40°---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“limiting device” in claim 7.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-30 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, 11-13, and 28 recites the limitation "pressure roller" in lines 3, 5, and 6 of claim 1, lines 1-2 of claim 2, lines 1-2 and 4 of claim 4, lines 3-4 and 6-7 of claim 9, line 2 of claim 11, line 3 of claim 12, line 1 of claim 13, and line 3 of claim 28. How does the “pressure roller” in lines 3, 5, and 6 of claim 1, lines 1-2 of claim 2, lines 1-2 and 4 of claim 4, lines 3-4 and 6-7 of claim 9, line 2 of claim 11, line 3 of claim 12, line 1 of claim 13, and line 3 of claim 28 relate to the “at least one driven rotational pressure roller” in lines 2-3 of claim 1? Is there another pressure roller being claimed that differs from the “at least one driven rotational pressure roller”? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the rubberized end face" in line 5. How does the “rubberized end face” in line 5 relate to the “at least one rubberized end face” in line 4. Is there another rubberized end face being claimed that differs from the “at least one rubberized end face”. Suggestion to change “the rubberized end face” to read ---the at least one rubberized end face---. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9, 12, and 28 recites the limitation "the rubberized outside circumferential surface" in lines 5-6 of claim 9, lines 2-3 of claim 12, and lines 2-3 of claim 28. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the rubberized end surfaces" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation the "pressure roller" in lines 4 and 6-7. How does the “pressure roller” in lines 4 and 6-7 relate to the “at least one driven rotational pressure roller” in lines 2-3 of claim 1? Is there another pressure roller being claimed that differs from the “at least one driven rotational pressure roller”? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the rubberized end face". How does the “rubberized end face” in claim 23 relate to the “at least one rubberized end face” in line 4 of claim 4? Is there another rubberized end face being claimed that differs from the “at least one rubberized end face”? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-14 and 20-30 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 1.
Claims 16-19 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 13, 15, 21-22, 24-27, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pintar (WO2009072992A2) in view of Ritter (DE202005020694U1).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Pintar discloses a forestry winch which has a rope drum (3) and an arrangement comprising an ejector (1; Figures 1-3) and a rope (4) for a forestry winch, wherein the ejector (1) has a rotational ejector roller (8) over which the rope (4) is guided and deflected, and has at least one driven rotational pressure roller (12) driven by a drive motor (17), wherein the pressure roller (12), by a pressure force, presses the rope (4) guided over the ejector roller (8) onto the ejector roller (8), and a tangential force occurs between the driven pressure roller (12) and the rope (4), wherein the pressure roller (12) is located on a cantilever arm (11) so that the pressure roller (12) can rotate around a pressure roller axis of rotation (axis of shaft 14), wherein the cantilever arm (11) is mounted so that it can rotate around a cantilever arm axis of rotation (axis of shaft 16), and wherein the rope (4) is guided from the rope drum (3) to the ejector roller (8) and over the ejector roller (8), but fails to teach a rope drum driven by a drive motor; and wherein the cantilever arm axis of rotation is located in the vertical direction above a line of application of the tangential force.
Ritter teaches a similar arrangement and forestry winch and further teaches a rope drum (61; Figure 2) driven by a drive motor (page 9, ¶8, cable drum drive); and wherein the cantilever arm axis of rotation (56.2) is located in the vertical direction above a line of application (WLT; see Ritter annotated Figure 3 below) of the tangential force. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the forestry winch and arrangement of Pintar to include the rope drum drive motor as taught by Ritter in order to wind the rope onto the drum after use and include the cantilever arm axis of rotation as taught by Ritter in order to keep the cantilever arm pivot shaft further away from the trajectory of the rope around the ejector roller to prevent wear or damage to the rope.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ritter, Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claims 3 and 21-22, Pintar discloses the above arrangement, but fails to teach wherein a line of application of the pressure force is separated from the cantilever arm axis of rotation by a first lever arm and the line of application of the tangential force is separated from the cantilever arm axis of rotation by a second lever arm, and wherein the ratio of the second lever arm to the first lever arm is in the range of 0.4 to 1.8.
Ritter teaches a similar arrangement and further teaches wherein a line of application of the pressure force (WLF; see Ritter annotated Figure 3 above) is separated from the cantilever arm axis of rotation (56.2) by a first lever arm (H1) and the line of application of the tangential force (WLT) is separated from the cantilever arm axis of rotation (56.2) by a second lever arm (H2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include wherein the ratio of the second lever arm to the first lever arm is in the range of 0.4 to 1.8; in the range of 0.6 to 1.2; and/or in the range of 0.8 to 1.1 in order to provide improved leverage of the cantilever arm and to keep the cantilever arm pivot shaft further away from the trajectory of the rope around the ejector roller to prevent wear or damage to the rope. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 24-27, Pintar discloses the above arrangement and further teaches wherein the generation of the pressure force, a spring device (15; Figure 2) comprising at least one tension spring (S; see Pintar annotated Figure 3 below) is provided, and wherein the spring device (15) is biased so to provide a pressure force on the rope (4); wherein a limiting device (LD) is provided that limits the spring (S) travel of the spring device (15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include wherein the spring device pressure force in the range between 50N and 500N; range between 60N and 400N; and/or range between 70N and 300N; and spring rate in the range between 3 N/mm and 10 N/mm; range between 4 N/mm and 8 N/mm; and/or range between 5 N/mm and 7 N/mm in order to apply ideal and improved force onto the rope or ejector roller to form friction force without causing premature wear or damage to the rope and roller. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image2.png
217
305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Pintar, Annotated Figure 3
Regarding claims 13 and 29-30, modified Pintar discloses wherein the driven pressure roller (12) is located on the ejector roller (8) so that between a force application point (BP; see Pintar annotated Fiugre 2 below) of the tangential force and an ejection point (AS) of the rope (4) from the ejector roller (8), there is an angle greater than 0°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include between a force application point of the tangential force and an ejection point of the rope from the ejector roller, there is an angle between 0° and 40; an angle between 10° and 35°; and/or an angle between 15° and 30° in order to reduce a vertical force acting counter to the cantilever arm to prevent premature wear of components. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image3.png
274
443
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Pintar, Annotated Figure 2
Claim(s) 2, 4, 9, 11-12, 14, 20, 23, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pintar, in view of Ritter, and in further view of Willenbucher (US20220306432A1).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 20, and 23, modified Pintar discloses the above arrangement and further teaches wherein the driven pressure roller (12) and the ejector roller (8) are rotationally coupled and the pressure roller (12) is in contact with the rope (4), but fails to teach between the driven pressure roller and the ejector roller an entrainment is provided to drive the ejector roller by the pressure roller, wherein the pressure roller has a rubberized outside circumferential surface (“at least one rubberized end face” claim 4) by which the pressure roller is in contact with the ejector roller, and wherein the Shore A hardness of the rubberized outside circumferential surface is in the range of 40 to 80.
Willenbucher teaches a similar arrangement and further teaches between the driven pressure roller (10; Figure 1) and the ejector roller (7) an entrainment (¶0012-0013) is provided to drive the ejector roller (7) by the pressure roller (10), wherein the pressure roller (10) has a rubberized outside circumferential surface (“at least one rubberized end face” claim 4) (25; ¶0045) by which the pressure roller (10) is in contact with the ejector roller (7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include the pressure roller as taught by Willenbucher in order to directly drive the ejector roller by frictional engagement of the pressure roller with the surfaces of the ejector roller and pressure roller for transferring the rope through the ejector; and include wherein the Shore A hardness of the rubberized outside circumferential surface (“rubberized end face” claim 4) is in the range of 40 to 80; and/or in the range of 55 to 75 in order to provide optimum frictional characteristics for gripping and moving the rope while reducing slippage. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, modified Pintar discloses wherein the ejector roller (8) has a locator groove (LG; see Pintar annotated Figure 3 below) for the rope (4), wherein the locator groove (LG) has a groove base (GB), and two lateral groove flanks (LF), but fails to teach wherein the locator groove has a flat or domed groove base on which the rope lies, and wherein the pressure roller protrudes into the locator groove of the ejector roller and the pressure roller is designed so that the pressure roller protrudes into the locator groove, and so that the rope is pressed by the rubberized outside circumferential surface of the pressure roller against the groove base, and/or so that the rubberized end surfaces of the pressure roller are in contact with the groove flanks of the ejector roller.
PNG
media_image4.png
212
343
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Pintar, Annotated Figure 3
Willenbucher teaches a similar arrangement and further teaches wherein the locator groove (20; Figure 2) has a flat or domed groove base (21) on which the rope (4) lies, and wherein the pressure roller (10) protrudes into the locator groove (20) of the ejector roller (7) and the pressure roller (10) is designed so that the pressure roller (10) protrudes into the locator groove (20), and so that the rope (1) is pressed by the rubberized outside circumferential surface (25) of the pressure roller (10) against the groove base (21), and/or so that the rubberized end surfaces (26a, 26b) of the pressure roller (10) are in contact with the groove flanks (22a, 22b) of the ejector roller (7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include the pressure roller and ejector roller as taught by Willenbucher in order to allow for different shapes of rope to be guided through the ejector roller, provide a flat frictional surface when the rope is deformed to improve movement of the rope along the ejector roller, and to directly drive the ejector roller by frictional engagement of the pressure roller with the surfaces of the ejector roller and pressure roller for transferring the rope through the ejector.
Regarding claim 11, modified Pintar discloses the rubberized outside circumferential surface (25 of Willenbucher) of the pressure roller (12) has a width factor of about 1 of the rope (4) diameter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include the rubberized outside circumferential surface of the pressure roller has a width in the range of a factor of 0.5 to a factor of 2.5 of the rope diameter in order to provide optimum frictional surface area for gripping and moving the rope to reduce slippage. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 12 and 28, modified Pintar discloses wherein the ratio of the groove opening width of the locator groove (LG) of the ejector roller (8) to the maximum width of the rubberized outside circumferential surface (25 of Willenbucher) of the pressure roller (12) is greater than a factor of 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include ratio of the groove opening of the ejector roller to a maximum width of the rubberized outside circumferential surface of the pressure roller in the range between 0.6 and 2.0; and/or in the range between 0.7 and 1.5 in order to provide optimum frictional surface area between the pressure roller, rope, and ejector roller for gripping and moving the rope to reduce slippage. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the experimental, optimum, or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14, modified Pintar discloses wherein the ejector (1) has a rope ejector opening for the rope (4), which is delimited laterally by two side plates (11; Figure 3) between which the rope (4) is guided, but fails to teach wherein the side plates have rounded inside edges as curved rope runout edges and the side plates are each made of non-metallic material.
Willenbucher teaches a similar arrangement and further teaches wherein the side plates (36a, 36b; Figure 4) have rounded inside edges (37a, 37b) as curved rope runout edges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include the side plates with rounded inside edges as taught by Willenbucher and side plates made of non-metallic material in order to prevent the rope from becoming frayed or worn by contact with sharp edges and tough material. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pintar, in view of Ritter, and in further view of Yang (KR20120063054A).
Regarding claim 8, modified Pintar discloses wherein the spring device (15) is fastened to a regulating screw (RS), wherein the regulating screw (RS) is in connection by a regulating nut (RN) with an abutment (A), and the regulating screw (RS) is provided with a screw head (SH), but fails to teach wherein the screw head interacts with the abutment to limit the spring travel of the spring device.
PNG
media_image5.png
217
432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Pintar, Annotated Figure 3
Yang teaches a similar arrangement and further teaches wherein the screw head (251a; Figure 5) interacts with the abutment (232, 232a) to limit the spring (252) travel of the spring device (250). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include the spring device as taught by Yang in order to further limit pivotal motion of the cantilever arm and to limit and stop the compression of the spring to a specified amount to prevent premature failure of the spring.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pintar, in view of Ritter, and in further view of Insam (US10647557B2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Pintar discloses the above arrangement, but fails to teach wherein the cantilever arm axis of rotation has some play around a vertical axis.
Insam teaches a similar winch arrangement and further teaches wherein the cantilever arm axis of rotation (A5; Figure 5) has some play around a vertical axis (A4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include the cantilever arm as taught by Insam in order for the cantilever arm and pressure roller to self-adjust and align with the ejector roller and different rope sizes to reduce calibration and maintenance time.
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pintar, in view of Ritter, and in further view of Cordrey (US2571341A).
Regarding claims 16-19, modified Pintar discloses the above forestry winch, but fails to teach wherein a rope stopper is located on the rope and a rope stopper catch is located in the vicinity of the rope drum and interacts with the rope stopper;
wherein the rope stopper is in the form of one of a ferrule, a clamp component, and a screw component fastened to the rope;
wherein the rope stopper catch has a V-shaped locator groove into which the rope stopper can be inserted;
wherein in a contact position, the rope stopper located on the rope is in contact with a lower end face on an upper side of the rope stopper catch.
Cordrey teaches a similar cable drum for a winch and further teaches wherein a rope stopper (11; Figures 1-6) is located on the rope (6) and a rope stopper catch (8) is located in the vicinity of the rope drum (1) and interacts with the rope stopper (11);
wherein the rope stopper (11) is in the form of one of a clamp component (12, 13, 14) fastened to the rope (6);
wherein the rope stopper catch (8) has a V-shaped locator groove (15; Figure 3) into which the rope stopper (11) can be inserted;
wherein in a contact position (Figure 3), the rope stopper (11) located on the rope (6) is in contact with a lower end face (LF; see Cordrey annotated Figure 3 below) on an upper side (US) of the rope stopper catch (8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Pintar to include the rope stopper and rope stopper catch as taught by Cordrey in order to anchor the rope to the drum to prevent accidental disengagement of the rope with the drum.
PNG
media_image6.png
104
469
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Pintar, Annotated Figure 3
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/H.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights