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 .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
WHEN CLAIMS ARE DIRECTED TO MULTIPLE CATEGORIES OF INVENTIONS
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475(c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-13, 15, and 16, drawn to a carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric.
Group II, claim 17, drawn to a method of producing a carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric.
The inventions listed as Groups I and II do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The common feature --a carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric comprising: a first layer comprising a plurality of first fibers oriented in a first direction; a second layer comprising a plurality of second fibers oriented in a second direction; a stitching yarn, wherein the second direction is within about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees of the first direction, wherein the first fibers comprise carbon fibers, wherein the second fibers are stabilization fibers, wherein an areal weight of the fabric is less than about 500 g/m2, wherein the first fibers constitute at least about 15 wt.% of the hybrid fabric, and wherein the second fibers constitute less than about 50 wt.% of the hybrid fabric-- cannot qualify as a special technical feature as it does not provide a contribution over the prior art because it is disclosed by Faure et al. (EP 2657385 B1) in view of Adolphs (US 2009/0162604 A1) (see the international search report).
Faure discloses a textile comprising a first reinforcing layer (ref. #2) consisting of a set of yarns (ref. 3) extending in the warp direction in parallel, a second reinforcing layer (ref. #4) composed of a set of high-tenacity yarns (ref. #5) extending perpendicular to the to the warp direction, an appearance layer (ref. #6) of a plurality of texturized threads/yarns (ref. #7) oriented approximately 45° with respect to the chain direction, and the assembly of the overlapping layers locked together by sewing/knitting threads (ref. #8) (figure 1 and [0028]-[0037] of Faure). Specifically, Faure provides for --a hybrid fabric comprising: a first layer comprising a plurality of first fibers oriented in a first direction; a second layer comprising a plurality of second fibers oriented in a second direction; a stitching yarn, wherein the second direction is within about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees of the first direction--.
Faure fails to disclose --a carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric, wherein the first fibers comprise carbon fibers, wherein the second fibers are stabilization fibers, wherein an areal weight of the fabric is less than about 500 g/m2, wherein the first fibers constitute at least about 15 wt.% of the hybrid fabric, and wherein the second fibers constitute less than about 50 wt.% of the hybrid fabric--.
Adolphs discloses a knitted infusion fabric, wherein prior to infusion would comprise a first layer of directional reinforcement material extending in a first direction, a second layer of directional reinforcement material extending in a second direction, wherein the first direction and second directions differ by about 45 degrees, each layer having an areal weight of between about 100 g/m2 to about 4000 g/m2, the reinforcement material selected from a group consisting of glass fibers, carbon fibers, and mixtures thereof, and wherein the layers are knitted together by a yarn (figures 1 to 2, [0007], [0008-], [0011], [0012], [0014] of Adolphs). (A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have calculated the fabric, prior to infusion, to have a areal weight of 200 g/m2 to 8000 g/m2; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --less than about 500 g/m2--. Furthermore, each of the layers could comprise 2.4% [=100*((100)/(100+4000))] to 95.6% [=100*((4000)/(100+4000))] of the fabric prior to infusion; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --the first fibers constituting at least about 15 wt.% of the hybrid fabric-- and --the second fibers constituting less than about 50 wt.% of the hybrid fabric--. Adolphs differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Adolphs, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. (Note: In the instant case of a third layer, as disclosed by Faure, the ranges would still be overlapping.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the fabric of Adolphs with the hybrid fabric disclosed by Faure in order to have --a carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric, wherein the first fibers comprise carbon fibers, wherein the second fibers are stabilization fibers, a stitching yarn maintaining the fibers of the first and second layers in their respective orientations, wherein an areal weight of the fabric is less than about 500 g/m2, wherein the first fibers constitute at least about 15 wt.% of the hybrid fabric, and wherein the second fibers constitute less than about 50 wt.% of the hybrid fabric--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the fabric of Adolphs with the hybrid fabric disclosed by Faure, from the stand-point of having a fabric with openings or voids between meshes that are positively held open to allow rapid resin infusion ([0006] of Adolphs). Therefore, the reference(s) specifically suggest(s) using the common elements as claimed.
During a telephone conversation with Joseph Tucker on 6 July 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-13, 15, and 16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim17 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner’s Notes
With Regards to Claims 11 and 13: Claims 11 and 13 recite "first fibers per cm" and "second fibers per cm", respectively. Said count of fibers per unit length have been treated by the examiner to be the number of fibers along a direction perpendicular to the orientation direction of the fibers in the layer (i.e., "in a direction perpendicular to the first direction" and "in a direction perpendicular to the second direction" for the first fibers of the first layer and the second fibers of the second layer, respectively).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application on 9 June 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With Regards to Claim 1: Claim 1 recites --the fabric-- in line 10, which is a typographical error; for clarity and consistency, it is recommended to correct this to read "the hybrid fabric".
With Regards to Claim 12: Claim 12 recites --forms stiches along-- in line 2, which is a typographical error; it is recommended to correct this to read "forms stitches.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faure et al. (EP 2657385 B1) in view of Adolphs (US 2009/0162604 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2: Faure discloses a textile comprising a first reinforcing layer (ref. #2) consisting of a set of yarns (ref. 3) extending in the warp direction in parallel, a second reinforcing layer (ref. #4) composed of a set of high-tenacity yarns (ref. #5) extending perpendicular to the to the warp direction, an appearance layer (ref. #6) of a plurality of texturized threads/yarns (ref. #7) oriented approximately 45° with respect to the chain direction, and the assembly of the overlapping layers are locked together by sewing/knitting threads (ref. #8), wherein the reinforcing yarns can be glass yarns or carbon yarns (figure 1, [0023], and [0028]-[0037] of Faure). Specifically, Faure provides for --a carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric comprising: a first layer comprising a plurality of first fibers oriented in a first direction; a second layer comprising a plurality of second fibers oriented in a second direction; a stitching yarn, wherein the second direction is within about 45 degrees to about 90 degrees of the first direction--.
Faure fails to disclose --a carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric, wherein the first fibers comprise carbon fibers, wherein the second fibers are stabilization fibers, a stitching yarn maintaining the fibers of the first and second layers in their respective orientations, wherein an areal weight of the fabric is less than about 500 g/m2, wherein the first fibers constitute at least about 15 wt.% of the hybrid fabric, and wherein the second fibers constitute less than about 50 wt.% of the hybrid fabric--.
Adolphs discloses a knitted infusion fabric, wherein prior to infusion would comprise a first layer of directional reinforcement material extending in a first direction, a second layer of directional reinforcement material extending in a second direction, wherein the first direction and second directions differ by about 45 degrees, each layer having an areal weight of between about 100 g/m2 to about 4000 g/m2, the reinforcement material selected from a group consisting of glass fibers, carbon fibers, and mixtures thereof, and wherein the layers are knitted together by a yarn (figures 1 to 2, [0007], [0008-], [0011], [0012], [0014] of Adolphs). (A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made could have calculated the fabric, prior to infusion, to have a areal weight of 200 g/m2 to 8000 g/m2; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --less than about 500 g/m2--. Furthermore, each of the layers could comprise 2.4 wt.% [=100*((100)/(100+4000))] to 95.6 wt.% [=100*((4000)/(100+4000))] of the fabric prior to infusion; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --the first fibers constituting at least about 15 wt.% of the hybrid fabric-- and --the second fibers constituting less than about 50 wt.% of the hybrid fabric--. Adolphs differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Adolphs, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. (Note: In the instant case of a third layer, as disclosed by Faure, the ranges would still be overlapping.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the fabric of Adolphs with the hybrid fabric disclosed by Faure in order to have --a carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric, wherein the first fibers comprise carbon fibers, wherein the second fibers are stabilization fibers, a stitching yarn maintaining the fibers of the first and second layers in their respective orientations, wherein an areal weight of the fabric is less than about 500 g/m2, wherein the first fibers constitute at least about 15 wt.% of the hybrid fabric, and wherein the second fibers constitute less than about 50 wt.% of the hybrid fabric--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the fabric of Adolphs with the hybrid fabric disclosed by Faure, from the stand-point of having a fabric with openings or voids between meshes that are positively held open to allow rapid resin infusion ([0006] of Adolphs).
Regarding Claim 10: Faure in view of Adolphs discloses that the first layer further comprises a plurality of third fibers oriented in a third direction, the third fibers being carbon fibers ([0008] of Adolphs). (In the instant case, the first direction and the third direction can be oriented in the same direction.)
Regarding Claim 12: Faure in view of Adolphs discloses that the stitching yarn forms stitches along a plurality of the first fibers (figure 2 of Adolphs).
Regarding Claim 15: Faure in view of Adolphs discloses that the first layer further comprises third fibers oriented in a third direction (in the instant case, the first direction and the third direction can be oriented in the same direction), wherein the second layer further comprises fourth fibers oriented in a fourth direction (in the instant case, the second direction and the fourth direction can be oriented in the same direction) ([0008] of Adolphs). Adolphs also discloses that the first layer and the second layer can comprise a mixture of glass fibers and carbon fibers ([0008] of Adolphs), but does not explicitly recite --the first fibers constitute from about 15 wt.% to about 80 wt.% of the total weight of the hybrid fabric, wherein the second fibers constitute from about from about 5 wt.% to about 50 wt.% of the total weight of the hybrid fabric, wherein the third fibers constitute from about 0 wt.% to about 50 wt.% of the total weight of the hybrid fabric; and wherein the fourth fibers constitute from about 0 wt.% to about 80 wt.% of the total weight of the hybrid fabric--. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the mixtures of carbon fibers and glass fibers disclosed by Adolphs ([0008] Adolphs) would include amounts wherein about 0% of the first layer comprises the third fibers, and wherein about 0% of the second layer comprises the fourth fibers. As such, the first layer could comprise the first fibers and the second layer could comprise the second fibers in the amounts of about 2.4% [=100*((100)/(100+4000))] to about 95.6% [=100*((4000)/(100+4000))] of the fabric prior to infusion; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --about 15 wt.% to about 80 wt.%-- of the first fibers, --about 5 wt.% to about 50 wt.%-- of the second fibers, --about 0 wt.% to bout 50 wt.%-- of the third fibers, and --about 0 wt.% to about 80 wt.%-- of the fourth fibers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Adolphs, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 16: Faure in view of Adolphs discloses that the first layer and the second layer can each comprise 2.4 wt.% [=100*((100)/(100+4000))] to 95.6 wt.% [=100*((4000)/(100+4000))] of the fabric prior to infusion; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --the first layer has an areal weight in the range of about 20 wt.% to about 80 wt.% by total weight of the hybrid fabric, and wherein the second layer has an areal weight in the range of about 5 wt.% to about 75 wt.% of the total areal weight of the hybrid fabric-- ([0008] of Adolphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Adolphs, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 3-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faure et al. (EP 2657385 B1) in view of Adolphs (US 2009/0162604 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sayers et al. (US 3,729,920 A), and further evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 2 ("Estimating the Diameter of Industrial Sewing Thread and Yarn") (referred to herein as "Shippee").
Faure in view of Adolphs is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 3: Faure in view of Adolphs failed to disclose --the stabilization fibers are a texturized yarn--.
Sayers discloses a core yarn comprising continuous filamentary glass core with a sheath consisting of a roving of textile fibers having flame-resistant properties, and wherein the yarn consists of a bundle of substantially parallel continuous glass filaments which have been texturized ([Col. 1: li. 3-8, 17-20, and 48-53] of Sayers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have incorporated the textile yarns of Sayers as the stabilization fibers of the carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric disclosed by Faure in view of Adolphs in order to have --the stabilization fibers be a texturized yarn--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have incorporated the textile yarns of Sayers as the stabilization fibers of the carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric disclosed by Faure in view of Adolphs have incorporated the textile yarns of Sayers as the stabilization fibers of the carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric disclosed by Faure in view of Adolphs, from the stand-point of giving the fabric both flame-resistance and dimensional stability ([Col. 1: li. 5-8] of Sayers).
Regarding Claim 4: Faure in view of Adolphs and Sayers discloses that the texturized yarn is a texturized glass yarn ([Col. 1: li. 3-8, 17-20, and 48-53] of Sayers).
Regarding Claim 5: Faure in view of Adolphs and Sayers discloses the claimed invention, but does not explicitly recite --the texturized yarn has a minimum diameter of less than about 4 mm--. Adolphs discloses that the second fibers can be E-glass fibers ([0008] of Adolphs), and Sayers discloses that the second fibers can have a yarn size of less than 1 denier (e.g., less than 0.11 tex). It has been evidenced by other non-patent literature that given a fiber density and yarn size, one can estimate the yarn diameter. Shippee discloses the formula [A=(sqrt((C/B)/314159.27)*20], wherein A is the yarn diameter in mm, B is the fiber density in g/cm3 (e.g., E-glass, 2.58 g/cm3), and C is the yarn size in tex. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art, as evidenced by Shippee, could have calculated the diameter of the second fibers to be about 0.0073 mm [=(sqrt((0.11 tex/(2.58 g/cm3))/314159.27)*20]; which anticipates the claimed range of --less than about 4 mm--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 9: Faure in view of Adolphs and Sayers discloses that the first layer and the second layer can each comprise 2.4 wt.% [=100*((100)/(100+4000))] to 95.6 wt.% [=100*((4000)/(100+4000))] of the fabric prior to infusion; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --about 5 wt.% to about 30 wt.% of the hybrid fabric-- ([0008] of Adolphs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Adolphs, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 11, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Faure et al. (EP 2657385 B1): Faure teaches --a carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric--, wherein Faure's carbon fiber and glass fiber hybrid fabric further comprises the structure --a textile comprising a first reinforcing layer (ref. #2) consisting of a set of yarns (ref. 3) extending in the warp direction in parallel, a second reinforcing layer (ref. #4) composed of a set of high-tenacity yarns (ref. #5) extending perpendicular to the to the warp direction, an appearance layer (ref. #6) of a plurality of texturized threads/yarns (ref. #7) oriented approximately 45° with respect to the chain direction, and the assembly of the overlapping layers are locked together by sewing/knitting threads (ref. #8)-- (figure 1 and [0028]-[0037] of Faure). However, Faure does not teach that --the texturized yarn comprises a plurality of bulked sections, each bulked section having a diameter of at least 10% greater than a minimum diameter of the texturized yarn-- {instant claim 6}, --the first layer comprises between about 0.25 and about 5 of the first fibers per cm-- {instant claim 11}, or --the second layer comprises between about 0.25 and about 5 of the second fibers per cm-- {instant claim 13}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Faure with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Faure in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okada (US 8,017,532 B2) discloses a fabric comprising a first layer of structural yarns aligned in a first direction, a second layer of structural yarns aligned in a second direction at an angle to the first direction, and the first layer and second layer held together by first encapsulating yarns and second encapsulating yarns.
Nishimura et al. (US 5,783,278 A) discloses a fabric comprising woven layers that have been stitched together.
Wahl et al. (US 4,931,358 A) discloses a fabric of at least two layers A, of continuous filament yarn oriented in at least one direction, alternating with a layer B, the layers being bonded by needling.
Benson (US 4,119,253 A) discloses a texturized yarn of glass filaments
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights