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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been received.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 06/27/2024 and 05/15/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: reference symbol ϴp is referenced par. [0050] but not shown in Fig. 7. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference symbol ϴp is referenced par. [0050] but not shown in Fig. 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a deviation amount” should be “the deviation amount.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein , wherein, when a …” should be “wherein, when a ….” 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:
In claim 1, “first acquisition part” is a generic placeholder for “means” followed by the functional language “for acquiring an inclination amount of a clamp surface of the tool main spindle.” A review of the specification shows that this function is performed by “tool clamp surface inclination amount acquisition part 23” of NC Device 20. See Fig. 7. However, the specification fails to disclose the structure the NC Device 20 (e.g., whether the NC Device includes a processor, CPU, memory, circuit, or other structure for performing the function at issue).
In claim 1, “second acquisition part” is a generic placeholder for “means” followed by the functional language “for acquiring a tool shaft rotation phase angle.” A review of the specification shows that this function is performed by “tool shaft rotation phase angle acquisition part 21” of NC Device 20. See Fig. 7. However, the specification fails to disclose the structure the NC Device 20 (e.g., whether the NC Device includes a processor, CPU, memory, circuit, or other structure for performing the function at issue).
In claim 1, “third acquisition part” is a generic placeholder for “means” followed by the functional language “for acquiring a protrusion amount in which the blade edge is protruded from the clamp surface of the tool main spindle.” A review of the specification shows that this function is performed by “tool protrusion amount acquisition part 22” of NC Device 20. See Fig. 7. However, the specification fails to disclose the structure the NC Device 20 (e.g., whether the NC Device includes a processor, CPU, memory, circuit, or other structure for performing the function at issue).
In claim 1, “first correction arithmetic processing part” is a generic placeholder for “means” followed by the functional language “for arithmetically processing a deviation amount ….” A review of the specification shows that this function is performed by “first correction arithmetic processing part 25” of NC Device 20. See Fig. 7. However, the specification fails to disclose the structure the NC Device 20 (e.g., whether the NC Device includes a processor, CPU, memory, circuit, or other structure for performing the function at issue).
In claim 2, “fourth acquisition part” is a generic placeholder for “means” followed by the functional language “for acquiring a turning angle of the tool main spindle.” A review of the specification shows that this function is performed by “turning angle acquisition part 24” of NC Device 20. See Fig. 7. However, the specification fails to disclose the structure the NC Device 20 (e.g., whether the NC Device includes a processor, CPU, memory, circuit, or other structure for performing the function at issue).
In claim 2, “second correction arithmetic processing part” is a generic placeholder for “means” followed by the functional language “for arithmetically processing a deviation amount ….”….” A review of the specification shows that this function is performed by “second correction arithmetic processing part 26” of NC Device 20. See Fig. 7. However, the specification fails to disclose the structure the NC Device 20 (e.g., whether the NC Device includes a processor, CPU, memory, circuit, or other structure for performing the function at issue).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they require a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function that is described in the specification as performing the claimed function. However, as discussed above, there is no corresponding structure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. As discussed above, the written description fails to disclose a corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the functions discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 2. Accordingly, claim s 1 and 2 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-4 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. As discussed above, the limitations in claims 1 and 2 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 1 and 2 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Clams 3 and 4 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 “first correction arithmetic processing part for arithmetically processing a deviation amount of the position of the blade edge that is generated between a reference position and the shaft rotation phase angle obtained by the second acquisition part due to the inclination amount of the tool clamp surface obtained by the first acquisition part and the protrusion amount obtained by the third acquisition part.” This element is unclear and thus indefinite. The claim appears to require that the claimed “deviation amount” be between a point (reference position) and an angle. Appropriate correction is required. Similar issue with claim 5. Dependent claims 2-4 and 6 are rejected based on their respective dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while independent claim 1 falls within a statutory class of a machine (i.e., claim 1 passes Step 1 of the § 101 analysis, see MPEP § 2106.03.II), under Step 2A of the § 101 analysis, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., fails Step 2A of the § 101 analysis). See MPEP § 2106.04.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “first acquisition part for acquiring an inclination amount of a clamp surface of the tool main spindle,” “second acquisition part for acquiring a tool shaft rotation phase angle,” “third acquisition part for acquiring a protrusion amount in which the blade edge is protruded from the clamp surface of the tool main spindle,” and “first correction arithmetic processing part for arithmetically processing a deviation amount ….” The claimed first, second, and third “acquisitions” and the claimed “arithmetically processing” are abstract ideas because they can be performed mentally and/or are mathematical concepts. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).I, II. Here, the claimed acquisitions and processing can be performed mentally by a human, for example, by measuring the claimed information and recording the information using a pen and paper.
Further, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas of acquiring and processing the claimed information into a practical application. For example, claim 1 does not positively recite that the NC machine performs a machining operation using the processed information (please note that, if Applicant positively recites such as step, Applicant’s Response should cite the support in the specification.). See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
In addition, the claim does not recite any improvement to the relevant technology. While the claim recites “processing a deviation amount of the position of the blade edge” based on the acquired information, the claimed “processing” does not “improve[] the functioning of a computer or improve[] another technology or technical field” and thus it is still an abstract idea that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
Finally, claim 1 also fails under Step 2B of the § 101 analysis because claim 1 fails to recite any additional elements that “amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” See MPEP § 2106.05. Even assuming, arguendo, that the claimed “processing” is a new idea, the “processing” is still an abstract idea, as discussed above, and thus does not amount to “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05 (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea” quoting Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016), emphasis original).
Each of the claimed “acquisitions” and “processing” as recited in claims 2, 5, and 6, respectively, are abstract ideas and/or mathematical concepts for reasons similar to those given above with respect to claim 1 and are therefore rejected under 35 USC 101 for the reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2021109274A to Okuma Machinery Works, Ltd. (“Okuma”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0152772A1 to Eiji Shamoto (Shamoto”). Okuma was submitted in the IDS of 06/27/2024. Citations are to the attached English translation.
An NC device for correcting a blade edge position at a time of a turning tool being mounted on a tool main spindle in a machine tool (Okuma discloses the claimed NC Device. Okuma at Abstract and Fig. 1-3.), comprising:
third acquisition part for acquiring a protrusion amount in which the blade edge is protruded from the clamp surface of the tool main spindle (Okuma teaches to measure the length of tool T from the spindle 1 (“acquiring a protrusion amount”). Okuma at pp. 2-3 and Figs. 6a,b.); and
first acquisition part for acquiring an inclination amount of a clamp surface of the tool main spindle (Okuma does not explicitly disclose acquiring the inclination amount. However, in a same field of endeavor, acquiring cutting tool position information (and thus analogous art), Shamoto discloses a first tilt motor 52 that tilts the spindle 46 on “an axis orthogonal to the axis of the spindle 46 and the Y axis” and a sensor 56 that detects the angle (“inclination amount”). Shamoto at par. [0035] and Fig. 1. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate additional spindle position information such as the “inclination” information from sensor 56 of Shamoto into the cutting tool position correction process of Okuma in order to “automatically shift the machining position, change the machining allowance, correct the machining shape and dimensions to avoid generation of an unmachined portion, or reduce the cut amount using an offset amount of the work coordinate system, a macro variable of the NC program, or the like.” See Shamoto at par. [0099]. Because both Okuma and Shamoto relate to acquiring and correcting for positional errors of the cutting tool, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.);
second acquisition part for acquiring a tool shaft rotation phase angle (Okuma does not explicitly disclose acquiring the rotation phase angle, as claimed. However, in a same field of endeavor, acquiring cutting tool position information (and thus analogous art), Shamoto discloses a z-axis motor 52 and a z-axis sensor 34 that detects the rotational position of the spindle 46 (“tool shaft rotation phase angle”). Shamoto at pars. [0034], and [0085]-[0088] and Figs. 1, 6, and 10-11. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Okuma and Shamoto for the reasons given above.);
first correction arithmetic processing part for arithmetically processing a deviation amount of the position of the blade edge that is generated between a reference position and the shaft rotation phase angle obtained by the second acquisition part due to the inclination amount of the tool clamp surface obtained by the first acquisition part and the protrusion amount obtained by the third acquisition part (Okuma discloses a position correction device D that corrects for the error in the protrusion length of tool T (i.e., corrects for Δl) each time the tool T is replaced. Okuma at pp. 2-4 and Fig. 3. Thus, Okuma teaches to correct for a deviation amount of the tool position. However, Okuma does not explicitly disclose that the deviation amount includes the information acquired by the first and second “acquisitions” discussed above. Shamoto teaches to determine the error between the measured coordinate value (point on the workpiece where the cutting tool makes contact) and the design coordinate value (point at which the cutting tool is intended to make contact). The coordinate value will include information from first and second “acquisitions” discussed above. Shamoto at par. [0044]. Because it is based on a contact between the cutting tool and the workpiece, the measured coordinate value will also include the protrusion amount. Accordingly, in the system of Okuma in view of Shamoto, the claimed “position of the blade edge” will correspond to the contact point between the workpiece and cutting tool and the claimed “reference position” will correspond to the design coordinate value (with will also take into account the protrusion correction). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Okuma and Shamoto for the reasons given above. Accordingly, Okuma in view of Shamoto renders obvious the claimed “first correction arithmetic processing part.”).
Regarding claim 2: The NC device for correcting a blade edge position according to claim 1, further comprising:
fourth acquisition part for acquiring a turning angle of the tool main spindle (Okuma does not explicitly disclose the claimed “turning angle.” However, Shamoto discloses that tilt motor 54 rotates the spindle 46 about an axis parallel to the y-axis and that tilt sensor 56 detects this angle (“turning angle”). Shamoto at par. [0035] and Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Okuma and Shamoto for the reasons given above.), and
second correction arithmetic processing part for arithmetically processing a deviation amount of the blade edge based on the turning angle of the tool main spindle obtained by the fourth acquisition part (The measured coordinate value discussed above with respect to claim 1 will include information from the tilt sensor 56. Thus, Okuma in view of Shamoto renders obvious the claimed “second correction arithmetic processing part.”)
Regarding claim 3: The NC device for correcting a blade edge position according to claim 1, wherein ,
wherein, when a central axis of the tool spindle is defined as an X-axis and two orthogonal axes on a plane perpendicular to the X-axis are defined as a Y-axis and a Z-axis, the first acquisition part acquires an amount of inclination of the clamping surface of the tool spindle in an XZ plane and/or an amount of inclination of the clamping surface of the tool spindle in an XY plane (Shamoto at Fig. 1 (note that the z-axis corresponds to the claimed “X-axis” and the x-axis corresponds to the claimed “Z-axis”).).
Regarding claim 4: The NC device for correcting a blade edge position according to claim 2,
wherein, when a central axis of the tool spindle is defined as an X-axis and two orthogonal axes on a plane perpendicular to the X-axis are defined as a Y-axis and a Z-axis, the first acquisition part acquires an amount of inclination of the clamping surface of the tool spindle in an XZ plane and/or an amount of inclination of the clamping surface of the tool spindle in an XY plane (Shamoto at Fig. 1 (note that the z-axis corresponds to the claimed “X-axis” and the x-axis corresponds to the claimed “Z-axis”).).
Regarding claim 5:
An automatic correction method for correcting a position of a blade edge of a turning tool at a time of the turning tool being mounted on a tool main spindle in a machine tool (Okuma discloses the automatic correction method. Okuma at Abstract and p. 4, and Fig. 1-3.), comprising:
first acquisition step in which an NC device acquires an inclination amount of a clamp surface of the tool main spindle; second acquisition step in which the NC device acquires a tool shaft rotation phase angle; third acquisition step in which the NC device acquires a protrusion amount in which the blade edge is protruded from the clamp surface of the tool main spindle; and first correction arithmetic processing step in which the NC device arithmetically processes a deviation amount of the position of the blade edge that is generated between a reference position and the shaft rotation phase angle obtained by the second acquisition step due to the inclination amount of the tool clamp surface obtained by the first acquisition step and the protrusion amount obtained by the third acquisition step (See analysis in claim 1.)
Regarding claim 6: The automatic correction method for a blade edge position according to claim 5, further comprising:
fourth acquisition step in which the NC device acquires a turning angle of the tool main spindle, and second correction arithmetic processing step in which the NC device arithmetically processes a deviation amount of the blade edge based on the turning angle of the tool main spindle obtained by the fourth acquisition step (See analysis in claim 2.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0269458 to Shamoto et al. discloses a cutting apparatus where the cutting edge position is corrected based on measurement results.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 9,658,610 to Otsubo et al. discloses machining tool with displacement and position measuring device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights