DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits for application no. 18/849,598 filed on September 23rd, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s claim to priority of application DE 10 2022 106 595.2 filed on March 21st, 2022. A certified copy was received on September 23rd, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 23rd, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding Claim 7, the recited term “physiological forces” is interpreted as “If physiological forces, that is to say forces which are not critical for the corresponding body part or component to be stabilized, are introduced into the apparatus via the two body sites of the user, a corresponding relative movement of the receptacle and of the pull-out body and therefore a movement of the body part to be stabilized is permitted in accordance with the hydraulic diameter in the apparatus. If, by contrast, forces which are not physiological, that is to say forces which are critical for the corresponding body part or component to be stabilized, are introduced into the apparatus, a relative movement between the pull-out body and the receptacle is only possible with a very high expenditure of force on account of the hydraulic diameter” [0004] – [0005]. See 112(b) rejection of claim 7 below.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claims 2-20 (line 1), please change the recitation of “Apparatus” to - - The apparatus - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1 (line 1).
Regarding Claim 3, please change the recitation of “wherein the inner surface of the passage opening has a guide in order to hold the second body centrally in the radial direction with respect to the inner surface of the passage opening” to - - wherein [[the]] an inner surface of the passage opening has a guide in order to hold the second body centrally in [[the]] a radial direction with respect to the inner surface of the passage opening - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 5, please change the recitation of “wherein the relative dimensions of the second body with respect to the passage opening are designed such that in the open valve position a fluid flow of the filling medium can be permitted in the region between the second body and the passage opening” to - - wherein [[the]] relative dimensions of the second body with respect to the passage opening are designed such that in [[the]] an open valve position a fluid flow of the filling medium can be permitted in the region between the second body and the passage opening - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 7 (line 4), please change the recitation of “held in the open valve position” to - - held in [[the]] an open valve position - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 7 (lines 7-8), please change the recitation of “into the closed valve position” to - - into [[the]] a closed valve position- - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 8 (lines 4-5), please change the recitation of “at least one region of the surface of the second body in an open valve position” to - - at least one region of [[the]] a surface of the second body in an open valve position - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 9 (line 2), please change the recitation of “wherein the surface of the second body” to - - wherein [[the]] a surface of the second body - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 12 (lines 4-6), please change the recitation of “and the inner surface of the receptacle in order to seal the first body with respect to the receptacle in the closed valve position” to - - and [[the]] an inner surface of the receptacle in order to seal the first body with respect to the receptacle in [[the]] a closed valve position - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 13 (line 5), please change the recitation of “the positioning part via a coupling element” to - - the positioning part via [[a]] the coupling element - - as antecedent basis has already been established in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15 (lines 2-5), please change the recitation of “wherein the sealing section comprises a sealing lip, wherein the sealing lip can be pressed against the inner surface of the receptacle by means of the filling medium in the closed valve position” to - - wherein [[the]] a sealing section comprises a sealing lip, wherein the sealing lip can be pressed against [[the]] an inner surface of the receptacle by means of the filling medium in [[the]] a closed valve position - - to establish antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 17, please change the recitation of “wherein the inner surface of the passage opening has a guide in order to hold the second body centrally in the radial direction with respect to the inner surface of the passage opening” to - - wherein [[the]] an inner surface of the passage opening has a guide in order to hold the second body centrally in [[the]] a radial direction with respect to the inner surface of the passage opening - - to establish antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, in the recitation of “a force transmission body transmitting an external force to the first body” the difference between the “force transmission body” recited in claim 1 and the “first body” recited in claim 1 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant discloses “The term “force transmission body” in the present case generally comprises an elongate, flexible, optionally elastic element which can have the form of an individual fibre, a fibre strand, a wire, a cord, a cable, a textile fabric with a limited width and fixed bilateral selvedge or the like. Alternatively, the force transmission body can also be formed as a rod element which is resistant to tension and has shear properties. In this case, the rod element is can be formed in one piece with the first body” [0019]. Examiner understands the Applicant’s intention to encompass different embodiments with the alternatives disclosed at paragraph [0019]; however, it is unclear how the force transmitting body (50) can transmit an external force to a portion of itself when the force transmitting member (50) and the first body (40) are formed as a single piece. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 7 (lines 5-9), in the recitation of “wherein the coupling element is configured such that when physiological forces or speeds act on the apparatus the second body can be held in the open valve position by the coupling element against a flow force of the filling medium, and when non-physiological forces or speeds act on the apparatus the flow force of the filling medium can displace the second body into the closed valve position against a clamping force of the coupling element and hold it therein” it is generally unclear how to distinguish, in an apparatus claim, the difference between the physiological and non-physiological forces recited in claim 7. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. Applicant could cancel claim 7 to clarify the recitation.
Regarding Claim 13, in the recitation of “wherein the sealing section comprises a positioning part, wherein the passage opening is formed at least partially by the positioning part, and wherein the second body can be elastically coupled to the positioning part via a coupling element” it is generally unclear whether Applicant has mixed embodiments or not. Claim 13 is clearly drawn towards the embodiments seen in Figs. 4A and 4B. These figures disclose a sealing section (80) comprises a separate positioning part (84); however, the first body (40) and the force transmission body (50) are disclosed as a single piece, so it is unclear how the force transmission body (50) can transmit an external force to the first body (40) as required by claim 1 (lines 7-8 – “a force transmission body transmitting an external force to the first body”). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 14, in the recitation of “wherein the force transmission body or the first body has an end stop” it is generally unclear whether Applicant has mixed embodiments or not. Claim 14 is clearly drawn towards the embodiments seen in Figs. 6A and 6D. These figures disclose an end stop (48); however, these embodiments do not disclose a positioning part (84) separate from the first body (40). The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Regarding Claim 17, in the recitation of “wherein the inner surface of the passage opening has a guide in order to hold the second body centrally in the radial direction with respect to the inner surface of the passage opening” the difference between the “guide section” recited in claim 2 and the “guide” recited in claim 17 is unclear. The lack of clarity renders the claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(o) – Double Inclusion.
Claims 2-20 are rejected based upon their dependency to a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barefoot (US 9,322,449).
Regarding Claim 1, Barefoot teaches an apparatus (Fig. 2, “shock absorber damper” 210; col. 11, lines 23-24 – “Referring to FIG. 2, many of the same basic structural elements are present as in the device of FIG. 1”) for stabilizing body joints and/or for supporting sports equipment, comprising:
a receptacle (cylindrical sidewall of “cylindrical housing” 212; col. 5, lines 31-34 – “a shock absorber may have a housing with a cylindrical sidewall. A piston may be slidably mounted for reciprocating through a piston stroke in and may sealingly engage the sidewall”), wherein the receptacle (212) is filled with a filling medium (“level of fluid in the reservoir” 221),
a first body (“piston” 240) for interacting with the filling medium (221),
wherein the first body (240) is arranged displaceably in the receptacle (212),
a force transmission body (“adjuster needle” 215) for transmitting an external force to the first body (240; see 112(b) rejection above),
a second body (“valve ball” 258) for interacting with the filling medium (221), which is arranged displaceably in the receptacle (212),
wherein the second body (258) is coupled elastically to the first body (240) via a coupling element (“valve coil spring” 257),
wherein at least the first body (240) has at least one passage opening (between “ports” 235 and “ports” 245) through which the filling medium (221) can flow, and
wherein the second body (258) is received displaceably within the passage opening (235, 245) of the first body (240),
wherein the first body (240) comprises a valve seat (see Fig. 2) in the region of the passage opening (235, 245) and the second body (258) forms a valve body (see Fig. 2), so that a flow of the filling medium (221) through the passage opening (235, 245) can be permitted or prevented depending on the valve position (258; col. 11, lines 23-39 – “Referring to FIG. 2, many of the same basic structural elements are present as in the device of FIG. 1. Additionally, a device for adjusting the proximity of valve components is shown. Oil flows between chambers 220 and 230 through ports and orifices in the same directions as described in relation to FIG. 1. However, the flow of oil from the compression chamber 220 to the rebound chamber 230 is opposed solely by the pressure of the shim spring 261 against the shim 262. Furthermore, upon rebound the reverse flow from the rebound chamber through port 234 and orifice 235 is opposed not only by the force of the valve coil spring 257 against the valve ball 258 but by a magnetic attraction between the valve ball and the end piece 219 of the adjuster needle 215. One of the valve ball 258 or end piece 219 is a permanent magnet, while the other is a magnetically permeable material. Of course, both may be permanent magnets oriented attractively with respect to each other”).
Regarding Claim 2, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the passage opening (Fig. 2, 235, 245) has a guide section (see Fig. 2) extending in a relative displacement direction of the second body (258) with respect to the first body (240), in order to guide the second body (258) in the relative displacement direction (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the inner surface of the passage opening (Fig. 2, 235, 245) has a guide (see Fig. 2) in order to hold the second body (258) centrally in the radial direction with respect to the inner surface of the passage opening (235, 245).
Regarding Claim 4, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the valve seat (Fig. 2, valve seat portion of 240) limits a relative displacement path of the second body (258) with respect to the first body (240) in the relative displacement direction (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the relative dimensions of the second body (Fig. 2, 258) with respect to the passage opening (between 235 and 245) are designed such that in the open valve position (position seen in Fig. 2) a fluid flow of the filling medium can be permitted in the region between the second body (258) and the passage opening (between 235 and 245; see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 258) is received in the passage opening (235, 245) of the first body (240) such that filling medium (221) can flow around at least one region of the surface of the second body (258) in an open valve position (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 8,
wherein the surface of the second body (Fig. 2, 258) around which flow can pass extends from a first surface section (upper section of 258), which faces at least one first end opening (upper end of 235) of the passage opening (between 235 and 245), to a second surface section (lower section of 258), which faces at least one second end opening (lower end of 245) of the passage opening (between 235 and 245).
Regarding Claim 10, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 258) at least partially has a convex incident flow profile (see Fig. 2) or a conical incident flow profile.
Regarding Claim 11, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 258) is spherical (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 12, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the first body (Fig. 2, 240) comprises a sealing section (not shown in Fig. 2) which is arranged between the first body (240) and the inner surface of the receptacle (cylindrical sidewall of 212) in order to seal the first body (240) with respect to the receptacle (212) in the closed valve position (col. 5, lines 31-34 – “a shock absorber may have a housing with a cylindrical sidewall. A piston may be slidably mounted for reciprocating through a piston stroke in and may sealingly engage the sidewall”).
Regarding Claim 14, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the force transmission body (Fig. 2, 215) or the first body (240) has an end stop (see Fig. 2),
wherein the force transmission body has at least one recess from the end stop in the movement direction up to a cross-sectional widening or the first body has at least one recess from the end stop in the movement direction up to a cross-sectional widening and/or the first body (240) has at least one recess (tapered portion of 235) extending from the valve seat (valve seat portion of 240) along the movement direction in the direction of the force transmission body (215), so that the filling medium (221) can flow through the at least one recess (tapered portion of 235).
Regarding Claim 16, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 12,
wherein the sealing section (not shown in Fig. 2) is an adaptive sealing section (col. 5, lines 31-34 – “a shock absorber may have a housing with a cylindrical sidewall. A piston may be slidably mounted for reciprocating through a piston stroke in and may sealingly engage the sidewall” emphasis added).
Regarding Claim 17, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the inner surface of the passage opening (Fig. 2, 235, 245) has a guide (see Fig. 2) in order to hold the second body (258) centrally in the radial direction with respect to the inner surface of the passage opening (235, 245).
Regarding Claim 18, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the valve seat (Fig. 2, valve seat portion of 240) limits a relative displacement path of the second body (258) with respect to the first body (240) in the relative displacement direction (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 258) at least partially has a convex incident flow profile (see Fig. 2) or a conical incident flow profile.
Regarding Claim 20, Barefoot teaches the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 258) is spherical (see Fig. 2).
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spiess (US 5,085,299).
Regarding Claim 1, Spiess teaches an apparatus (Fig. 2, “shock absorber” 2) for stabilizing body joints and/or for supporting sports equipment, comprising:
a receptacle (“cylinder” 4), wherein the receptacle (4) is filled with a filling medium (col. 2, lines 26-27 – “work chambers 24, 26 are at least partly filled with a pressure fluid”),
a first body (“stepped damper piston” 14) for interacting with the filling medium,
wherein the first body (14) is arranged displaceably in the receptacle (4),
a force transmission body (“pin” 84) for transmitting an external force to the first body (14; see 112(b) rejection above),
a second body (“valve body” 50) for interacting with the filling medium, which is arranged displaceably in the receptacle (4),
wherein the second body (50) is coupled elastically to the first body (14) via a coupling element (“restoring spring” 82),
wherein at least the first body (14) has at least one passage opening (“valve chamber” 130) through which the filling medium can flow, and
wherein the second body (50) is received displaceably within the passage opening (130) of the first body (14),
wherein the first body (14) comprises a valve seat (“first valve seat” 86) in the region of the passage opening (130) and the second body (50) forms a valve body (see Fig. 2), so that a flow of the filling medium through the passage opening (130) can be permitted or prevented depending on the valve position (col. 5, line 62 – col. 6, line 7 – “a distinction will be made between two operating states of the shock absorber. In the first operating state, regular operation, the magnet coil 44 of the first single valve 31 has current through it, such that the first control part 75 of the valve body 50 is pressed to a variable extent against the first valve seat 86. In the second operating state, in the event of a defect in the electrical lead line 48 or because of inadequate current through the magnet coil 44, for example, the sum of the restoring force of the restoring spring 82 plus the upwardly directed force of the pressure in the first pressure connection 51 predominates and presses the second control part 76 of the valve body 50 against the second valve seat 88”).
Regarding Claim 2, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the passage opening (Fig. 2, 130) has a guide section (guide section of 130) extending in a relative displacement direction of the second body (50) with respect to the first body (14), in order to guide the second body (50) in the relative displacement direction (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the inner surface of the passage opening (Fig. 2, 130) has a guide (guide section of 130) in order to hold the second body (50) centrally in the radial direction with respect to the inner surface of the passage opening (130).
Regarding Claim 4, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the valve seat (Fig. 2, 86) limits a relative displacement path of the second body (50) with respect to the first body (14) in the relative displacement direction.
Regarding Claim 5, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the relative dimensions of the second body (Fig. 2, 50) with respect to the passage opening (130) are designed such that in the open valve position a fluid flow of the filling medium can be permitted in the region between the second body (50) and the passage opening (130; see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 50) is held in an open valve position by the coupling element (“restoring spring” 82) in a starting position of the apparatus (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 50) is received in the passage opening (130) of the first body (14) such that filling medium can flow around at least one region of the surface of the second body (50) in an open valve position (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 8,
wherein the surface of the second body (Fig. 2, 50) around which flow can pass extends from a first surface section (upper portion of 50 adjacent “second valve seat” 88), which faces at least one first end opening (88) of the passage opening (130), to a second surface section (lower end of 50 adjacent 86), which faces at least one second end opening (86) of the passage opening (130).
Regarding Claim 10, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 50) at least partially has a convex incident flow profile (see Fig. 2) or a conical incident flow profile.
Regarding Claim 11, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 50) is spherical.
Regarding Claim 12, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 1,
wherein the first body (Fig. 2, 14) comprises a sealing section (“guide ring seal” 20) which is arranged between the first body (14) and the inner surface (“inner jacket face” 22) of the receptacle (4) in order to seal the first body (14) with respect to the receptacle (4) in the closed valve position.
Regarding Claim 16, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 12,
wherein the sealing section (Fig. 2, 20) is an adaptive sealing section (see Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 17, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the inner surface of the passage opening (Fig. 2, 130) has a guide (guide section of 130; see 112(b) rejection above) in order to hold the second body (50) centrally in the radial direction with respect to the inner surface of the passage opening (130).
Regarding Claim 18, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 2,
wherein the valve seat (Fig. 2, 86) limits a relative displacement path of the second body (50) with respect to the first body (14) in the relative displacement direction.
Regarding Claim 19, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 50) at least partially has a convex incident flow profile (see Fig. 2) or a conical incident flow profile.
Regarding Claim 20, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 9,
wherein the second body (Fig. 2, 50) is spherical (see Fig. 2).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiess (US 5,085,299), in view of Bichler (WO 2020/115227). Bichler was cited on the IDS filed September 23rd, 2024. See translation provided to Applicant with this Office Action.
Regarding Claim 7, Spiess teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Spiess does not teach “wherein the coupling element is configured such that when physiological forces or speeds act on the apparatus the second body can be held in the open valve position by the coupling element against a flow force of the filling medium, and when non-physiological forces or speeds act on the apparatus the flow force of the filling medium can displace the second body into the closed valve position against a clamping force of the coupling element and hold it therein” (see 112(b) rejection above).
Bichler teaches “If physiological forces, i.e. forces not critical for the body part or component to be stabilized accordingly, are introduced into the device via the two body positions of the user, then a corresponding relative movement of the receptacle and the pull-out body and thus a movement of the body part to be stabilized is permitted in the device according to the hydraulic diameter” [0007] and “If, on the other hand, unphysiological forces, i.e. critical forces for the body part or component to be stabilized accordingly, are introduced into the device, a relative movement between the pull-out body and the receptacle is only possible with very great force exertion due to the hydraulic diameter” [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the coupling element taught by Spiess as suggested by Bichler, such that “wherein the coupling element is configured such that when physiological forces or speeds act on the apparatus the second body can be held in the open valve position by the coupling element against a flow force of the filling medium, and when non-physiological forces or speeds act on the apparatus the flow force of the filling medium can displace the second body into the closed valve position against a clamping force of the coupling element and hold it therein”, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining known elements, and have the obvious advantage of stabilizing the apparatus taught by Spiess.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claims 13 and 15, a determination of allowability will be considered after Applicant’s response to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) presented above.
Reasons for allowance, if applicable, will be the subject of a separate communication to the Applicant or patent owner, pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.104 and MPEP § 1302.14.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, Applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. The prior art of Barefoot (US 8,104,591), Van Wonderen (US 6,659,239), Venetta (US 6,161,663) and Zuo (US 10,203,017) listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited" disclose similar shock absorbers comprising piston valves related to various aspects of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James J. Taylor II whose telephone number is (571)272-4074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached at 571-270-5565. 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.
JAMES J. TAYLOR II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3655
/JAMES J TAYLOR II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights