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 7/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to the extent that they apply to the current rejection as the examiner does not rely on the previously cited art for the newly added rejections.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 199-201, 205-207, 220 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, 65 of U.S. Patent No. 11713384. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to claim 199, this content is recited in claims 1, 2, 65
As to claim 200, this content is recited in claims 1, 2, 65
As to claims 201, 205-207, this content is recited in claims 1, 2, 6, 65
As to claim 220, this content is recited in claim 1
Claims 221 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6, 65 of U.S. Patent No. 11713384 in view of DesJardins (US 2016/0235158). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to claim 221, 11713384 does not explicitly state the component is a sole for footwear.
DesJardins teaches a lattice and susbtrate for cushioning including helmets and shoe soles [0034, Abstract] wherein the lattice structure is formed directly on the substrate without adhesive or fastener and therefore forms an integral piece [0037, Fig 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and made a shoe sole as opposed to a helmet component, as suggested by 11713384, as the same desirable properties for cushioning were applicable to both a helmet component or a shoe sole.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 199 states that the second portion of the component is formed by “molding the second portion of the component over at least part of the first portion.” Claim 200 then states that the forming process is done by injection molding the 2nd portion. The examiner has assumed molding the second portion of the component over… the first portion merely requires that the 2nd component is not produced via additive manufacturing and is then combined onto the first portion. This is further evidenced by claim 219 as this claim would invoke 112(d) if the overmolding process described in 219 were required by claims 199 and 200.
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 218 is 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 218 recites the limitation "expanding the molded expandable material to define the second portion of the component.” However, the expandable material only exists within the first portion according to claim 201.
The examiner has assumed this is typographical error and applicant has intended for the claim to read “define the first portion of the component.”
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.
Claim 199, 200, 219, 220 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutin (US 2019/0231018) in view of Busbee (US 2019/0037960) and Desjardins (US 8418270).
As to claim 199, Boutin teaches a method of making component for an article which is an impact absorbing, wearable helmet which would have an interior and exterior surface[Abstract], the component made by forming an additively-manufactured portion [Fig 7]; and a non-additively-manufactured portion [0126, 0024, 0025], and a 2nd portion formed by non additive manufacturing methods phrased as “non-customized” shapes [0108] or the non-additively-manufactured portion comprising expandable material molded into an initial shape about the additively manufactured portion and expanded from the initial shape to an expanded shape that is a scaled-up version of the initial shape phrased as a foam (foam is produced by mixing a plastic with a blowing agent ie an expanding agent) [0113, 0217].
Boutin does not explicitly state placing the first portion of the component into a mold and injection molding the second portion of the component about the first portion of the component.
Busbee teaches a method of 3D printing athletic articles such as footwear [Abstract] wherein a first portion if made via 3D printing put in a mold and then injection molding to form a different portion as this allows for a complex shape and to directly bond the 2 different portions [0067]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and formed a portion of the article via 3d printing then placed the component into a mold and performed injection molding on the component, as suggested by Busbee, in order to form a complex structure and directly bond the 2 components.
Desjardins teaches a protective helmet [Abstract] wherein a first component is overmolded on both its interior and exterior with molded hinges (130) [col 3 line 30-55, Fig 7] and bumpers [col 3 line 60-col 4 line 30]. This allows for the helmet to have a better fit [col 3 line 30-55], utilize different materials in different areas [col 4 line 20-30], and provide impact attenuation [col 3 line 60-67]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and utilized injection molding on both an interior of the body facing surface and an exterior surface generally opposite to the interior body face surface, as suggested by Desjardins, in order to have the helmet to have a better fit, utilize different materials in different areas, and provide impact attenuation.
As to claim 220, Boutin teaches the component is a cushion [0113].
Claim 201-207, 209 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutin (US 2019/0231018) in view of Busbee (US 2019/0037960) and Desjardins (US 8418270), as applied to claims 199, 200, 219, 220 above, and in further view of Poelma (US 2021/0023775).
As to claim 201, Boutin does not explicitly state the expandable material of the non- additively-manufactured component extends into the 3D lattice structure of the additively-manufactured component and the additively-manufactured portion comprises 3D-printed expandable material expanded from an initial shape to an expanded shape that is a scaled-up version of the initial shape of the 3D-printed expandable material.
Poelma teaches a method of 3D printing lattice structures wherein microsphere expanding agents are included in the 3D printed objects [Abstract] as this increases stiffness relative to weight and was ideal for cushioning and helmet applications [0090]. Wherein the expansion occurs after printing by baking, hence, the printing would be below the expansion temperature of the microballoon expansion agents [0061, 0090, 0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and had the 3D lattice created out of the expandable material, as suggested by Poelma, as this increased the stiffness of the part relative to weight and was ideal for helmets.
As to claim 202, The combination of Boutin and Poelma as explained above teaches a lattice structure comprising microsphere expansion agents as both Boutin [0126] and Poelma [0023, 0014, 0089-0090] teach lattice structures.
As to claim 203, Boutin teaches 3d printing both latticular and non latticular portions of the helmet [Fig 1a-9, 0126, 0127, 0108, 0113, 0217].
As to claim 204, Boutin teaches the 3D lattice structure includes distinct zones that are structurally different. [0137]
As to claims 205-207, The combination of Boutin and Poelma as explained above teaches a lattice structure comprising microsphere expansion agents [0032]. Poelma teaches a polymeric substance binder used to print the lattice structure [0023, 0014, 0089-0090] and the expansion agent of microspheres [0032].
As to claim 209, the combination of Boutin and Poelma teach the binding agent is cured prior to expansion as a dual cure system is used where the expanding agent is cured during the baking [0044, 0061].
Claim 208, 210-213, 218 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutin (US 2019/0231018) in view of Busbee (US 2019/0037960), Desjardins (US 8418270) Poelma (US 2021/0023775), as applied to claims 201-207, 209 above, and in further view of Krick (WO 2017/136941).
As to claims 208, 218, Boutin does not explicitly state that the expansion from the initial shape into the expanded shape is a plurality of hours after the formation of the initial shape.
Krick teaches a method of making helmets with expanded material [abstract] the amount of time between formation into an initial shape and expansion can be several hours or days [Page 26 line 15-20] as this enhances physical properties [page 26 line 5-13]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and not expanded the expandable material until hours after being formed into an initial shape, as suggested by Krick, as this improved physical properties.
As to claim 210, Boutin does not explicitly state curing the binding agent in the 3d-printed expandable material comprises heat curing the initial shape of the 3D printed expandable material at a temperature that is below the expansion temperature of the expansion agent.
Poelma teaches a method of 3D printing lattice structures wherein microsphere expanding agents are included in the 3D printed objects [Abstract] as this increases stiffness relative to weight and was ideal for cushioning and helmet applications [0090]. Wherein the expansion occurs after printing by baking, hence, the printing would be below the expansion temperature of the microballoon expansion agents [0044, 0061, 0090, 0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and had the 3D lattice created out of the expandable material and performed curing below the expansion temperature of the expansion agent, as suggested by Poelma, as this increased the stiffness of the part relative to weight and was ideal for helmets.
Krick teaches a method of making helmets with expanded material [abstract] the amount of time between formation into an initial shape and expansion can be several hours or days [Page 26 line 15-20] as this enhances physical properties [page 26 line 5-13] and notes that molding/curing occurs at a lower temperature than the expansion temperature of the expansion agent [page 21 line 5-32]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and not expanded the expandable material until hours after being formed into an initial shape, as suggested by Krick, as this improved physical properties.
As to claims 211 and 212, Boutin does not teach when the molding of the second portion over at least part the first portion is before or after expansion.
Krick teaches a method of making helmets with expanded material [abstract]. Krick notes that a component of the helmet is combined with an “expandable” component, by which expandable is defined as “capable of expanding and/or has been expanded.” In other words, the component with the expandable material can be combined with the other component before or after being expanded [page 14 line 8-21]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and had the component with the expandable material can be combined with the other component before or after being expanded, as suggested by Krick, as either method had proven successful at creating a combined part.
As to claim 213, Boutin does not explicitly state molding the 2nd portion of the component over at least part of the initial shape of the first portion before the 3d printed expandable material is expanded from the initial shape to the expanded shape.
Krick teaches a method of making helmets with expanded material [abstract] the amount of time between formation into an initial shape and expansion can be several hours or days [Page 26 line 15-20] as this enhances physical properties [page 26 line 5-13] and notes to keep molding temperatures below the expansion temperature of the expansion agent [page 3 line 20-25, claims 117, 187]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and not expanded the expandable material until hours after being formed into an initial shape and keep the molding of the 2nd component at a temperature below the expansion temperature of the expansion agent, as suggested by Krick, as this improved physical properties.
Claim 221 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutin (US 2019/0231018) in view of Busbee (US 2019/0037960) and Desjardins (US 8418270), as applied to claims 199, 200, 219, 220 above, and in further view of DesJardins (US 2016/0235158).
As to claim 221, Boutin does not explicitly state the component is a sole for footwear.
DesJardins teaches a lattice and substrate for cushioning including helmets and shoe soles [0034, Abstract] wherein the lattice structure is formed directly on the substrate without adhesive or fastener and therefore forms an integral piece [0037, Fig 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and made a shoe sole as opposed to a helmet component, as suggested by Boutin, as the same desirable properties for cushioning were applicable to both a helmet component or a shoe sole.
Claim 199, 200, 219, 220 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutin (US 2019/0231018) in view of Zapciu (Elastomer overmolding over rigid 3d-printed parts for rapid prototypes).
As to claim 199, Boutin teaches a method of making component for an article which is an impact absorbing, wearable helmet which would have an interior and exterior surface[Abstract], the component made by forming an additively-manufactured portion [Fig 7]; and a non-additively-manufactured portion [0126, 0024, 0025], and a 2nd portion formed by non additive manufacturing methods phrased as “non-customized” shapes [0108] or the non-additively-manufactured portion comprising expandable material molded into an initial shape about the additively manufactured portion and expanded from the initial shape to an expanded shape that is a scaled-up version of the initial shape phrased as a foam (foam is produced by mixing a plastic with a blowing agent ie an expanding agent) [0113, 0217].
Boutin does not explicitly state placing the first portion of the component into a mold and injection molding the second portion of the component about the first portion of the component.
Zapciu teaches a protective goggles [Fig 2] wherein a first rigid component is placed into a mold and overmolded on both its interior and exterior with elastomer by injection molding [Abstract, Fig 2, Fig 3] which provided mechanical fixation to the first rigid part [Fig 3, page 77 first paragraph]. This allows for improvement in the form and feel of the 3D printed part [Abstract, Conclusion]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and utilized injection molding on both an interior of the body facing surface and an exterior surface generally opposite to the interior body face surface, as suggested by Zapciu, in order to improve the feel of the part as well as mechanically fix the elastomer in place.
As to claim 220, Boutin teaches the component is a cushion [0113].
Claim 201-207, 209 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutin (US 2019/0231018) in view of Zapciu (Elastomer overmolding over rigid 3d-printed parts for rapid prototypes), as applied to claims 199, 200, 219, 220 above, and in further view of Poelma (US 2021/0023775).
As to claim 201, Boutin does not explicitly state the expandable material of the non- additively-manufactured component extends into the 3D lattice structure of the additively-manufactured component and the additively-manufactured portion comprises 3D-printed expandable material expanded from an initial shape to an expanded shape that is a scaled-up version of the initial shape of the 3D-printed expandable material.
Poelma teaches a method of 3D printing lattice structures wherein microsphere expanding agents are included in the 3D printed objects [Abstract] as this increases stiffness relative to weight and was ideal for cushioning and helmet applications [0090]. Wherein the expansion occurs after printing by baking, hence, the printing would be below the expansion temperature of the microballoon expansion agents [0061, 0090, 0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and had the 3D lattice created out of the expandable material, as suggested by Poelma, as this increased the stiffness of the part relative to weight and was ideal for helmets.
As to claim 202, The combination of Boutin and Poelma as explained above teaches a lattice structure comprising microsphere expansion agents as both Boutin [0126] and Poelma [0023, 0014, 0089-0090] teach lattice structures.
As to claim 203, Boutin teaches 3d printing both latticular and non latticular portions of the helmet [Fig 1a-9, 0126, 0127, 0108, 0113, 0217].
As to claim 204, Boutin teaches the 3D lattice structure includes distinct zones that are structurally different. [0137]
As to claims 205-207, The combination of Boutin and Poelma as explained above teaches a lattice structure comprising microsphere expansion agents [0032]. Poelma teaches a polymeric substance binder used to print the lattice structure [0023, 0014, 0089-0090] and the expansion agent of microspheres [0032].
As to claim 209, the combination of Boutin and Poelma teach the binding agent is cured prior to expansion as a dual cure system is used where the expanding agent is cured during the baking [0044, 0061].
Claim 208, 210-213, 218 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutin (US 2019/0231018) in view of Zapciu (Elastomer overmolding over rigid 3d-printed parts for rapid prototypes), as applied to claims 201-207, 209 above, and in further view of Krick (WO 2017/136941).
As to claims 208, 218, Boutin does not explicitly state that the expansion from the initial shape into the expanded shape is a plurality of hours after the formation of the initial shape.
Krick teaches a method of making helmets with expanded material [abstract] the amount of time between formation into an initial shape and expansion can be several hours or days [Page 26 line 15-20] as this enhances physical properties [page 26 line 5-13]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and not expanded the expandable material until hours after being formed into an initial shape, as suggested by Krick, as this improved physical properties.
As to claim 210, Boutin does not explicitly state curing the binding agent in the 3d-printed expandable material comprises heat curing the initial shape of the 3D printed expandable material at a temperature that is below the expansion temperature of the expansion agent.
Poelma teaches a method of 3D printing lattice structures wherein microsphere expanding agents are included in the 3D printed objects [Abstract] as this increases stiffness relative to weight and was ideal for cushioning and helmet applications [0090]. Wherein the expansion occurs after printing by baking, hence, the printing would be below the expansion temperature of the microballoon expansion agents [0044, 0061, 0090, 0032]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and had the 3D lattice created out of the expandable material and performed curing below the expansion temperature of the expansion agent, as suggested by Poelma, as this increased the stiffness of the part relative to weight and was ideal for helmets.
Krick teaches a method of making helmets with expanded material [abstract] the amount of time between formation into an initial shape and expansion can be several hours or days [Page 26 line 15-20] as this enhances physical properties [page 26 line 5-13] and notes that molding/curing occurs at a lower temperature than the expansion temperature of the expansion agent [page 21 line 5-32]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and not expanded the expandable material until hours after being formed into an initial shape, as suggested by Krick, as this improved physical properties.
As to claims 211 and 212, Boutin does not teach when the molding of the second portion over at least part the first portion is before or after expansion.
Krick teaches a method of making helmets with expanded material [abstract]. Krick notes that a component of the helmet is combined with an “expandable” component, by which expandable is defined as “capable of expanding and/or has been expanded.” In other words, the component with the expandable material can be combined with the other component before or after being expanded [page 14 line 8-21]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and had the component with the expandable material can be combined with the other component before or after being expanded, as suggested by Krick, as either method had proven successful at creating a combined part.
As to claim 213, Boutin does not explicitly state molding the 2nd portion of the component over at least part of the initial shape of the first portion before the 3d printed expandable material is expanded from the initial shape to the expanded shape.
Krick teaches a method of making helmets with expanded material [abstract] the amount of time between formation into an initial shape and expansion can be several hours or days [Page 26 line 15-20] as this enhances physical properties [page 26 line 5-13] and notes to keep molding temperatures below the expansion temperature of the expansion agent [page 3 line 20-25, claims 117, 187]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and not expanded the expandable material until hours after being formed into an initial shape and keep the molding of the 2nd component at a temperature below the expansion temperature of the expansion agent, as suggested by Krick, as this improved physical properties.
Claim 221 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutin (US 2019/0231018) in view of Zapciu (Elastomer overmolding over rigid 3d-printed parts for rapid prototypes), as applied to claims 199, 200, 219, 220 above, and in further view of DesJardins (US 2016/0235158).
As to claim 221, Boutin does not explicitly state the component is a sole for footwear.
DesJardins teaches a lattice and substrate for cushioning including helmets and shoe soles [0034, Abstract] wherein the lattice structure is formed directly on the substrate without adhesive or fastener and therefore forms an integral piece [0037, Fig 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Boutin and made a shoe sole as opposed to a helmet component, as suggested by Boutin, as the same desirable properties for cushioning were applicable to both a helmet component or a shoe sole.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM Monday-Friday.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights