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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 25 September. Claims 1-24 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 January 2025, 10 April 2025 and 28 May 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 3C lists reference character “331” and is not clear in view of the spec para. [0068] recites “retaining wall 331A and retaining wall 331B”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: spec para. [0068] recites “retaining wall 331A and retaining wall 331B” and is not clear in view of fig. 3C “331”. The spec. and fig. should match.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 23 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recite “ones” three times, where claim 23 recite “ones” once. Where “ones” should be “one”. Applicant may clarify on the record that the plural form of “one” is intended and keep the claim language as “ones”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 4 lines 2-3 recite “the respective finished products from the assembly units to the storage units”. Claim 2 recites “storage units... for storing supply material”. Spec. para. [0040] recites “production flow includes the storage of supply materials and/or raw materials in raw material storage unit 111” where the claim 4 “storage units” is interpreted as the spec. “raw material storage unit 111”. Spec. para. [0043] recites “Manufactured goods that pass final test and meet specifications are then conveyed, by another instance of material-handling conveyance robots 115, to final storage unit 151 for storage until delivery/deployment.” Therefore, it is not clear that the Applicant had possession of the “raw material storage unit 111” would be performing the duties assigned to the “final storage unit 151” as the spec. clearly defines different roles for each “unit”.
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 4, 9, 12-13, 16, 19 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 line 3 recites “the storage units” and is not clear in view of least claim 2 and the spec. paras. [0040] and [0043] as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “the storage units” to be “a final storage unit”. Examiner notes: Applicant may change claim dependency of claim 4 from claim 3 to that of claim 5 which introduces “a final storage unit” however this will create antecedent basis issues with other structure in the claim language. Therefore, in alternate Applicant may change claim 5 to depend on claim 3 and claim 4 to depend on claim 5 along with changing any structure so as not to have antecedent basis issue.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "respective shipping containers" in line 2. Claim 8 lines 1-2 introduce “a respective shipping container”. It is not clear if claim 9 should depend on claim 8 or if claim 8 should recite “a plurality of respective shipping containers”. Examiner notes the plural form of “containers” is causing confusion in claim 9 as to if either each “production units” and “assembly units” are individually coupled to “respective shipping containers” or that each “respective shipping containers” is coupled to another “respective shipping containers”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 9 to recite “wherein the production units and the assembly units are each coupled to a respective shipping container”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “integration tools for combining, when assembled, the body components and the electronics components” in lines 1-3. The claim language is not clear if the Examiner must find “integration tools” that will (1) combine a “body component” to an “electronic component”, (2) combine assembled “body component(s)” to each other or (3) combine assembled “electronic component(s)” to each other. It is not clear in the spec how the “body component” is combined with an “electronic component” to help clarify the connection to look for in the prior art.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "manufacturing" in line 3. Claim 1 line 5 recite “produce”. The term “manufacturing” is defined in the transitive verb form as “to make into a product suitable for use”, “to make from raw materials by hand or by machinery” and “to produce according to an organized plan and with division of labor”. Claim 13 is not clear in view of claim 1 that “produce respective intermediate products” is “manufacturing” due to the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 term “produce” has a wider range of definitions. Examiner notes: the claim language should match the verb usage to clearly define the same process, either claim 1 and 9 should be “manufacture/manufacturing” or “produce/producing”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "making adjustments" in line 2. The claim language is unclear as to what of the invention is being adjusted. Examiner notes the broad claim language is causing additional search and consideration in the prior art. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 16 to be broad claim language applicable to any part or system of a ship in the prior art.
The term “high-pressure” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high-pressure” does not include units of measure or range for one skilled in the art to determine how “high”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 19 to recite “pressure air”.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "ones of the docking ports on respective predefined paths" in line 12. Claim 23 lines 3-4 introduce “docking ports... a given one of the docking ports...”. It is not clear if claim 23 line 12 “ones of the docking ports” is the same or different than either “docking ports” or “a given one of the docking ports” of lines 3-4. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 23 to recite “"the given one of the docking ports”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "respective predefined paths" in line 12. Claim 23 does not introduce “a respective predefined path” or “a plurality of predefined paths”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 23 to recite “a respective predefined path”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "a mission" in line 9. The term “mission” is defined in the noun form as “a specific task with which a person or a group is charged”, “a definite military, naval, or aerospace task”, “a flight operation of an aircraft or spacecraft in the performance of a mission” and “a preestablished and often self-imposed objective or purpose”. The Examiner interprets “mission” to be one of “a definite military or naval task”, however it is unclear as how the military task or naval task is related to the invention in the claim language. The spec. paras. [0029]-[0032] discuss missions of “military missions”, “manufacture attritable devices”, “disaster recovery” or “building temporary shelter units or providing other food, clothing, and shelter needs on land”. Claim 24 lines 7-8 recite “to produced a finished product”, where based on the spec. is also disclosed as “a mission”. Therefore, the claim should clarify the term “mission” as it relates to the invention. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets claim 24 to recite “upon completion of a mission of producing the finished product”.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-2, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Szychlinski (US 3138131 A). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
1509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Szychlinski discloses a maritime vessel (“large ships and vessels”; See at least: See at least Figs. 1-43 for different vessel embodiments and col. 1 line 9) for manufacturing products (“The configuration of the decks is such that the entire cargo of the ship can be rotated internally providing a means whereby specialized manufacturing systems or processes can be carried out while the ship is underway without the need for any discharge and/or reloading of units being handled.”; See at least: col. 3 lines 18-26), comprising: a factory ship (“large ships and vessels” with “specialized manufacturing systems or processes”; See at least: citations above) that is ocean-going and comprises a propulsion system (“propulsion spaces”, “propulsion means 231”, “engine room”; See at least: col. 5 lines 26-27 and 30, col. 17 lines 37-43, col. 18 line 14-16 and fig. 33) and navigation system (“house 26 accommodates navigation facilities, radio shack”, “bridge” “navigation facilities”; See at least: col. 5 lines 15-16, col. 17 line 43, col. 18 line 6) for crossing an ocean; and factory units (Examiner notes: units for aircraft, helicopter, various amphibious units and boats, etc., specialized manufacturing systems or processes, whaling, fishing, mine, buoy, cargo and associated cargo space; See at least: “aircraft or helicopter ship providing adequate landing space, maintenance, support an storage area for such aircraft...” col. 2 lines 50-56, “various types of cargo of various shapes, sizes and lengths, including unitized cargo, pallets, containers, boxcars, vehicles, trailers, auto- mobiles, and automobile trailers” col. 2 lines 67-70, “handling of wheeled or track amphibious vehicles, tracked units or boats providing a suitable slope for launching into the sea. With suitable design of the stern section, the vessel can be employed as a floating marine railway for the repair and maintenance of various amphibious units and boats, etc. The configuration of the decks is such that the entire cargo of the ship can be rotated internally providing a means whereby specialized manufacturing systems or processes can be carried out while the ship is underway without the need for any discharge and/or reloading of units being handled. This may, for example, be applied in the whaling and fishing industry where such arrangement would permit catching, hauling aboard, rendering, canning, freezing, stowing, boxing, etc. The ship is particularly adaptable to mine warfare, including the assembly, maintenance, repair and modification of mines on board and the laying of such mines individually or in strings. In a like manner, buoys and other floating navigation aid can be laid, picked up and maintained...” col. 3 lines 11-31,“cargo deck” col. 5 line 11, “central decks 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37... starboard inclined decks... 38S, 39S, 40S, 41S and 42S... port side... 38P, 39P, 40P, 41P and 42P...” col. 5 lines 44-54, “cargo space” col. 6 line 36) on board the factory ship, the factory units comprise production units (any one of “maintenance”, “repair”, “hauling”, “rendering”, “canning”, “freezing”, “modification”; See at least: citation above) operable to produce respective intermediate products (any one of a (1) maintained, repaired or modified part {mine, buoys, cargo or part for the listed vehicles} or vehicle {aircraft, helicopter, various amphibious units and boats, etc.}, (2) caught fish or whale (3) rendered fish or whale, (4) canned fish or whale or (5) frozen fish or whale; See at least: citation above), and the factory units comprise assembly units (any one of “assembly”, “canning”, “freezing”, “stowing” or “boxing”; See at least: citation above) operable to assemble respective finished products (any one of (1) an assembled part {mine, buoys, cargo or part for the listed vehicles} or vehicle {aircraft, helicopter, various amphibious units and boats, etc.}, (2) canned fish or whale, (3) frozen fish or whale, (4) stowed fish or whale or (5) boxed fish or whale; See at least: citation above) from the respective intermediate products.
Regarding claim 2, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses further comprising storage units (“cargo space”; See at least: citation above) proximal to respective production units (“internal decks” and “configuration of the decks”; See at least: col. 3 lines 11-32 where the Examiner interprets the cited production units to be on the internal decks as disclosed by Szychlinski) for storing supply material (where the above cited supply material is viewed as “cargo”; See at least: citation above and where the vessel of Szychlinski is not limited as where “cargo” can be stowed in the “cargo space(s)”).
Regarding claim 5, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses further comprising a final storage unit (“cargo space”; See at least: citation above) proximal to the at least one of the assembly units (“internal decks” and “configuration of the decks”; See at least: col. 3 lines 11-32 where the Examiner interprets the cited assembly units to be on the internal decks as disclosed by Szychlinski) for storing the respective finished products (where the above cited finished products are viewed as “cargo”; See at least: where the vessel of Szychlinski is not limited as where “cargo” can be stowed in the “cargo space(s)”).
Regarding claim 8, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses wherein the factory units each comprise a respective shipping container (“cargo” “container”; See at least: “various types of cargo of various shapes, sizes and lengths, including unitized cargo, pallets, containers, boxcars, vehicles, trailers, auto- mobiles, and automobile trailers” col. 2 lines 67-70).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szychlinski (US 3138131 A) in view of Nakata et al. (JP 2022134260 A). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image2.png
485
609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses further comprising material-handling conveyance robots (“known conveyorized systems which might include overhead mono or multi-rails with appropriate supporting rigs which would readily support such heavy loads, or deck rails, conveyorized rollers, chain conveyors and so forth, or on their own wheels, if so equipped.”; See at least: col. 6 lines 72-75 and col. 7 lines 1-2) operable to convey the supply material from the storage units to the production units (“routed about the ship to final stowage position”; See at least: col. 6 lines 70-71 where “routed about the ship” is interpreted to include any intermediate stops).
However, Szychlinski does not disclose material-handling conveyance robots.
Nakata et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches material-handling conveyance robots (“container transport device 30” ;See at least: text copy page 4 of 8 5th para. on the page “...container transport device 30 may be configured to turn left and right in addition to forward or backward. Further, for example, like a transport device (transport vehicle, transport robot) used in material handling, in addition to forward and backward movement, it may be configured to be movable in the lateral direction. Also, one container C may be transported using a plurality of transport devices...” emphasis added by Examiner).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified conveyorized systems of Szychlinski with container transport device 30 of Nakata et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of a transport device that moves in multiple directions (forward, backwards, turn left, turn right) and in the lateral direction (See at least: Nakata et al. text copy page 4 of 8 5th para. on the page cited above).
Regarding claim 4, Szychlinski in view of Nakata et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses wherein the material-handling conveyance robots are further operable to convey the respective finished products from the assembly units to the storage units (“routed about the ship to final stowage position”; See at least: col. 6 lines 70-71).
However, Szychlinski does not disclose material-handling conveyance robots.
Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 7, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses further comprising material handling conveyance robots operable to convey the respective intermediate products from the production units to the assembly units (“routed about the ship to final stowage position”; See at least: col. 6 lines 70-71 where “routed about the ship” is interpreted to include any intermediate stops).
However, Szychlinski does not disclose material-handling conveyance robots.
Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 3 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szychlinski (US 3138131 A) in view of Smith et al. (US 5833795 A). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses wherein one of the factory units (“repair” of “aircraft”; See at least citation above) includes a testing apparatus operable to test the respective finished products (assembled “aircraft”; See at least citation above).
However, Szychlinski does not disclose includes a testing apparatus operable to test.
Smith et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein one of the factory units (“repair of structural components... such as the skin of an aircraft”; See at least: col. 1 lines 7-10) includes a testing apparatus operable to test (“non-destructive evaluation methods ("NDE")”; See at least: col. 2 lines 9-16 “the repaired area can be inspected by non-destructive evaluation methods ("NDE"); also known as non-destructive inspection or testing ("NDI/NDT") methods. Examples of NDE include ultrasonic inspection, radiographic inspection (x-ray), fluorescent penetrant inspection ("FPI"), magnetic particle inspection ("MPI"), eddy current inspection and the like. These inspection techniques allow for the inspection of the repaired part or joint without degrading the integrity of the underlying material, bond or joint...” where the Examiner interrupts the methods include an associated apparatus to perform the inspection method).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the repair of aircraft of Szychlinski with non-destructive evaluation methods ("NDE") of Smith et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of using inspection techniques allow for the inspection of the repaired part or joint without degrading the integrity of the underlying material, bond or joint (See at least: Smith et al. col. 2 lines 9-16 cited above).
Claims 9, 15, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szychlinski (US 3138131 A) in view of Christiansen et al. (WO 2022238471 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image3.png
1320
1461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses wherein the production units and the assembly units are coupled to respective shipping containers (“cargo” “container”; See at least: “various types of cargo of various shapes, sizes and lengths, including unitized cargo, pallets, containers, boxcars, vehicles, trailers, auto- mobiles, and automobile trailers” col. 2 lines 67-70).
However, Szychlinski does not explicitly disclose coupled to.
Christiansen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the production units (modules; See at least: figs. 1-4) and the assembly units (modules; See at least: figs. 1-4) are coupled to respective shipping containers (container; See at least: text copy page 13 of 20, 6th para. form the top of the page “Each module is housed e.g., in a container or fitted with a transport chassis allowing easy allocation of the module.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified units for aircraft, helicopter, various amphibious units and boats, etc., specialized manufacturing systems or processes, whaling, fishing, mine, buoy, cargo and associated cargo space of Szychlinski with modules of Christiansen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a modular ship system using modules configurable for different tasks (See at least: Christiansen et al. abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Szychlinski does not disclose further comprising a power control system to coordinate power consumption among the factory units.
Christiansen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a power control system (integrated power management system (IPMS); See at least: text copy page 11 of 20 second to last para. “A mission module may, as an example, communicate with an integrated power management system (IPMS) system. The mission module may communicate with the IPMS through an adapter and or a gateway software. The adapter translates signals and protocols between the mission module and various systems of the ship.”) to coordinate power consumption among the factory units (mission module or module; See at least: figs. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vessel of Szychlinski with IPMS of Christiansen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a system to communicate signals and protocols between the mission module and various systems of the ship (See at least: Christiansen et al. text copy page 11 of 20 second to last para.).
Regarding claim 17, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses further comprising a self-defense system (“military vessels”; See at least: col. 3 lines 50-52) for defending the factory ship against a hostile threat (“enemy action”; See at least: col. 3 lines 50-52).
However, Szychlinski does not explicitly disclose a self-defense system.
Christiansen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a self-defense system (Combat Management Systems (CMS); See at least: text copy page 3 of 20 first para. “Signal communication may include communication with internal ship systems such as Integrated Platform Management Systems (IPMS) and Combat Management Systems (CMS), and it may include weapon systems data and data for controlling purpose etc.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vessels of Szychlinski with CMS of Christiansen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a system to control weapon systems and their associated data (See at least: Christiansen et al. text copy page 3 of 20 first para. cited above).
Regarding claim 18, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Szychlinski does not disclose further comprising docking ports configured to receive one of the factory units, wherein the one of the factory units, when coupled to one of the docking ports, is coupled to receive one or more services from the factory ship.
Christiansen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising docking ports (docking position; See at least: text copy page 2 of 20, 11th para. on the page “The modular ship system comprises a ship having at least one mission docking position. The mission docking position could be a specified area where different mission modules can be received. Particularly the mission docking position may be characterized by having a layout.”) configured to receive one of the factory units (mission modules; See at least: figs. 1-4), wherein the one of the factory units, when coupled to one of the docking ports, is coupled to receive one or more services (“power, ventilation, communications, water, and data”; See at least: page 13 of 20, 6th para on the page) from the factory ship, (ship; See at least: abstract and figs. 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the vessel of Szychlinski with docking position and mission modules of Christiansen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing the flexibility of the ship and allow an easier adaptation of new modules (See at least: Christiansen et al. abstract “...To increase flexibility and allow an easier adaptation of new modules...”).
Regarding claim 19, Szychlinski in view of Christiansen et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above.
Christiansen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more services comprise providing one or more of: electrical power (power; See at least: page 3 of 20, 2ed para. “...Supply Communication may relate to power, liquids, air, fuel, and/or waste etc. such items may be exchanged between the mission module and the ship via the interface...”); water (liquids; See at least: citation above); waste removal (waste; See at least: citation above); hydraulic fluid (liquids; See at least: citation above); fuel (fuel; See at least: citation above); oil (liquids; See at least: citation above); 3D printer filaments or resins (liquids; See at least: citation above); or high-pressure air (air; See at least: citation above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified vessel of Szychlinski with docking position and mission modules of Christiansen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a socket and plug interface between the ship and the module connecting ship systems to the module systems (See at least: Christiansen et al. text copy page 3 of 20, 8th para. “A part of the layout may be the interface between the ship and the mission module. The interfaces may include sockets and plugs, and they may be grouped e.g., in a basic interface to be available at all mission docking positions, and optionally one or more specific interfaces.”).
Regarding claim 20, Szychlinski in view of Christiansen et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above.
Christiansen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one of the docking ports includes a docking ring (socket; See at least: text copy page 3 of 20, 8th para. cited above) configured to receive a docking probe (plug; See at least: text copy page 3 of 20, 8th para. cited above) coupled to the one of the factory units (modules; See at least: figs. 1-4).
Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 19 above.
Regarding claim 21, Szychlinski in view of Christiansen et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above.
Szychlinski discloses further comprising a plurality of conveyance tracks (“conveyorized systems”; See at least: col. 6 lines 72-75 and col. 7 lines 1-2 “known conveyorized systems which might include overhead mono or multi-rails with appropriate supporting rigs which would readily support such heavy loads, or deck rails, conveyorized rollers, chain conveyors and so forth, or on their own wheels, if so equipped.” Examiner notes that deck rails best match the Applicants disclosure.) coupled between ones of the docking ports and a warehouse (“cargo deck”, “central decks”, port and starboard inclined decks, “cargo space”; See at least: ,“cargo deck” col. 5 line 11, “central decks 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37... starboard inclined decks... 38S, 39S, 40S, 41S and 42S... port side... 38P, 39P, 40P, 41P and 42P...” col. 5 lines 44-54, “cargo space” col. 6 line 36, where the Examiner interprets any cargo deck/space or deck being used to store cargo as a warehouse), wherein the conveyance tracks are configured to facilitate transfer of ones of the factory units (cargo; See at least: citation above) between the warehouse and ones of the docking ports (“final stowage position”; See at least: col. 6 lines 68-72 “Containers also may be delivered in a like manner to that described for handling pallets. They could be routed about the ship to final stowage position through the use of various types of known conveyorized systems...”).
However, Szychlinski does not disclose ones of the docking ports.
Christiansen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches ones of the docking ports (docking position; See at least: text copy page 2 of 20, 11th para. on the page “The modular ship system comprises a ship having at least one mission docking position. The mission docking position could be a specified area where different mission modules can be received. Particularly the mission docking position may be characterized by having a layout.”).
Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for at least the same reasoning as applied to claim 18 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szychlinski (US 3138131 A) in view of Rudy et al. (US 4864719 A). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image4.png
506
701
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses wherein one of the production units (“maintenance” “repair” or “modification” of “aircraft”; See at least; citation above) comprise electronics assembly tools for assembling electronics components of a vehicle (“aircraft” ; See at least: “aircraft or helicopter ship providing adequate landing space, maintenance, support and storage area for such aircraft...” col. 2 lines 50-56).
However, Szychlinski does not disclose electronics assembly tools.
Rudy et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches electronics assembly tools (“soldering”; See at least: col. 4 lines 65-67 “appropriate for soldering to conductive paths of a printed circuit board” where the examiner interprets “soldering” to include the apparatus of a soldering iron and col. 3 lines 30-32 “black boxes must be capable of removal from the aircraft such as for frequent routine testing and maintenance, or for replacement...” emphasis added by examiner).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified “maintenance” “repair” or “modification” of “aircraft” of Szychlinski to include “soldering” of Rudy et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of soldering to conductive paths of a printed circuit board during maintenance, or replacement of aircraft components (See at least: Rudy et al. col. 3 lines 30-32 and col. 4 lines 65-67 cited above).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szychlinski (US 3138131 A) in view of Rudy et al. (US 4864719 A) and further in view of Nguyen et al. (US 4761884 A). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image5.png
839
590
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Szychlinski in view of Rudy et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses wherein one of the production units (“maintenance” “repair” or “modification” of “aircraft”; See at least; citation above) comprises body fabrication tools for assembling body components of the vehicle (“aircraft” ; See at least: citation above).
However, Szychlinski does not disclose nor does Rudy et al. teach body fabrication tools for assembling body components.
Nguyen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches body fabrication tools (metal skin trimming device 10; See at least: abstract and fig. 1) for assembling body components (“metal skin”; See at least: col. 1 lines 7-10 “manufacturing metal skins, and more particularly, but not by way of limitation, to a device for trimming to a desired net shape a metal skin particularly adapted for use in aircraft”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified “maintenance” “repair” or “modification” of “aircraft” of Szychlinski with metal skin trimming device 10 of Nguyen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of manufacturing metal skins, and trimming to a desired net shape a metal skin for use in aircraft (See at least: Nguyen et al. col. 1 lines 7-10 cited above).
Regarding claim 12, Szychlinski in view of Rudy et al. and further in view of Nguyen et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses wherein one of the assembly units (“assembly” of “aircraft” or parts of “aircraft”; See at least: citation above) comprises integration tools for combining, when assembled, the body components and the electronics components.
However, Szychlinski does not disclose the claim language in bold italics above.
Rudy et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches integration tools (“soldering”; See at least: col. 4 lines 65-67 “appropriate for soldering to conductive paths of a printed circuit board” where the examiner interprets “soldering” to include the apparatus of a soldering iron) for combining, when assembled, the body components and the electronics components (“conductive paths of a printed circuit board”; See at least: col. 4 lines 65-67 “appropriate for soldering to conductive paths of a printed circuit board”).
However, Rudy et al. does not teach the claim language in bold italics above.
Nguyen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches integration tools (“riveting”; See at least: abstract “are attached as by riveting to the airframe” where the examiner interprets “riveting” to include the apparatus of a rivet device such as a rivet gun) for combining, when assembled, the body components (“metal skin”; See at least: citation above) and the electronics components.
However, Nguyen et al. does not teach the claim language in bold italics above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified “assembly” of “aircraft” of Szychlinski with “soldering” “conductive paths of a printed circuit board” of Rudy et al. and “riveting” “metal skin” of Nguyen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing ships crew or trades with tools necessary to assemble an aircraft or its parts (See at least: Nguyen et al. abstract “attached as by riveting to the airframe” and Rudy et al. col. 4 lines 65-67 “appropriate for soldering to conductive paths of a printed circuit board”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szychlinski (US 3138131 A) in view of Rossway (US 6170141 B1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image6.png
574
849
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses wherein one of the production units (“maintenance” “repair” or “modification” of “aircraft”; See at least; citation above) comprises rotational machinery for rotating at least one of the respective intermediate products (maintained, repaired or modified “aircraft” or parts of “aircraft”; See at least: citation above) during manufacturing.
However, Szychlinski does not disclose rotational machinery for rotating.
Rossway in a similar field of endeavor, teaches rotational machinery (“aircraft shipping system 10”; See at least figs. 1 and 23 and col. 13 lines 3-6 “...the aircraft engine is now in a configuration that it may be rotated. Using the hand crank 132 or air motor (not shown), the aircraft engine is then rotated.”) for rotating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified “maintenance” “repair” or “modification” of “aircraft” of Szychlinski with aircraft shipping system 10 of Rossway with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a support that allows an aircraft engine to be lifted, lowered and rotated during maintenance and repairs (See at least: Rossway col. 1 lines 17-25 “...it is often necessary for the engines of an aircraft to be removed for inspection or repair. These aircraft engines are perhaps the most critical assembly of an aircraft which must be maintained in a high state of repair. Regular and rigorous maintenance must be performed on the engines which also require thorough inspections. Accordingly, it may be necessary to remove these engines from the wing or fuselage of an aircraft so that the engine can undergo the required inspection or repairs.” and col. 2 lines 63-64 “the jet aircraft engine may still be manually lifted or lowered, and manually rotated”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szychlinski (US 3138131 A) in view of Cen et al. (CN 212883181 U). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image7.png
699
1130
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses further comprising techniques for air filtration of a selected unit (“maintenance” “repair” or “modification” of “aircraft” or part of “aircraft”; See at least: citation above) for curing of epoxy or other volatiles in a controlled condition.
However, Szychlinski does not disclose the claim language in bold italics above.
Cen et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches techniques for air filtration (“efficient filtering system”; See at least: text copy page 3 of 5 first para. “efficient filtering system can effectively make the air fresh air after filtering, and the air in the spraying and baking paint room is continuously and circularly filtered; after filtering, the air filtering efficiency is more than 98 %; the indoor gas is more than 10 μm dust 100 %, effectively improving the working staff working environment when painting, improving the air quality of the working staff indoor operation;”) of a selected unit (“aircraft maintenance”; See at least: text copy page 2 of 5 first para “...to improve the aircraft maintenance...”) for curing of epoxy or other volatiles (“paint” “volatiles”; See at least: text copy page 4 of 5 last para. “a paint mist processing system 16 and the secondary paint mist processing system 17 is the air flow smoothly discharging and processing paint remaining paint mist in resin and paint solvent in the harmful volatiles; spraying paint remaining paint mist falls into the filter material under the action of the high speed air flow, wherein the solid part is blocked; the harmful gas in the solvent is diluted and discharged after absorbing by active carbon.”) in a controlled condition (“aircraft component paint spraying machine room”; See at least: abstract and text copy page 4 of 5 last para. “the indoor humidity is controlled below 60 %RH; the spraying and baking varnish room 3 can set the drying temperature of the requirement; the heating system 12 automatically and circularly heats the air according to the indoor feedback temperature”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified “maintenance” “repair” or “modification” of “aircraft” or part of “aircraft” of Szychlinski with “aircraft component paint spraying machine room” of Cen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the working staff working environment and air quality (See at least: text copy page 3 of 5 first para. “...improving the working staff working environment when painting, improving the air quality of the working staff indoor operation...”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szychlinski (US 3138131 A) in view of Hamamatsu et al. (US 20120259489 A1). See below for selected figs. from the prior art.
PNG
media_image8.png
813
617
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
However, Szychlinski does not disclose further comprising a system to monitor weather conditions to account for and make adjustments due to weather parameters.
Hamamatsu et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a system (“ship maneuvering control system”; See at least: para. [0001]) to monitor weather conditions (“weather”; See at least: para [0003] “the optimal planned route proposed by the current weather routing is calculated based on meteorological and marine phenomena prediction information acquired at long-time intervals, such as at one-day intervals. To be specific, the current weather routing does not consider, for example, the meteorological and marine phenomena which change as the ship sails along the route or the meteorological and marine phenomena which have changed in a short period of time. Therefore, the optimal planned route proposed by the current weather routing is not necessarily a route in which the meteorological and marine phenomena of the current position of the ship and the current state of the ship are reflected.”) to account for and make adjustments (“route S6, S7” “ship maneuvering control S8”; See at least fig. 10) due to weather parameters.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified navigation facilities of Szychlinski with ship maneuvering control system of Hamamatsu et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of easing the burden to ship’s crew and lower fuel consumption of the ship (See at least: Hamamatsu et al. para. [0044] “the accurate ship maneuvering control corresponding to the actually encountered marine phenomenon and the hull state, such as the draft, can be performed although it has been difficult to realize by the current weather routing. Thus, not only the reduction of the burden of the ship pilot but also the low fuel consumption and safe sail independent of the skill of the ship pilot can be realized...”).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szychlinski (US 3138131 A).
Regarding claim 22, Szychlinski discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Szychlinski discloses wherein one or more of the factory units includes at least two production units (“rendering”, “canning” or “freezing”; See at least: citation above) that are operable to concurrently and independently produce a particular intermediate product ((1) rendered fish or whale, (2) canned fish or whale. or (3) frozen fish or whale; See at least: citation above) from a corresponding supply unit (“hauling”; See at least: citation above).
Szychlinski does not explicitly disclose that the process of the whaling and fishing industry is operable to concurrently and independently produce (interpreted by examiner as running product lines in parallel).
However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have run the process in parallel to make different products from the fish or whale being hauled in. Applicant has not disclosed that running product lines in parallel provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the fishing and whaling process of Szychlinski using parallel processes to obtain the invention as specified in the claims.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen et al. (WO 2022238471 A1) in view of Szychlinski (US 3138131 A).
Regarding claim 23, Christiansen et al. discloses an ocean-going vessel (ship 2; See at least: fig. 1 and text copy page 2 of 20 9th para. on the page “modular ocean-going vessels”), having a reconfigurable factory (“a modular ship system configurable for different tasks”; See at least: abstract), the ocean-going vessel comprising: a deck (“deck”; See at least: figs. 1-4 and text copy page 3 of 20, 4th para. “The mission docking positions could be on the upper deck, on a shelter deck, or generally anywhere in the ship where one mission module can be exchanged with another mission module.”) having docking ports (“mission docking positions”; See at least: figs. 1-4 and text copy page 3 of 20, 3rd para. “...the ship may have a plurality of mission docking positions. The mission docking positions may be identical, or each mission docking position may be different from the other mission docking positions, or they could be groupwise identical to mission docking positions in the same group or have similarities with mission docking positions of the same group but be different from other mission docking positions...”) implemented therein, wherein a given one of the docking ports is configured to receive a first factory unit (mission modules; See at least: figs. 1-4 and text copy page 3 of 20, 5th para. “...mission modules are configured to be received in at least one of the at least one mission docking position, and optionally, they are configured to be received in several different mission docking positions, e.g., in all available mission docking positions. The mission modules may be identical, or each mission module may be different from the other mission modules, or they could be groupwise identical to mission modules in the same group or have similarities with mission modules of the same group but be different from other mission modules”) of a first type (either of "providing module" or "consuming module"; See at least: text copy page 8 of 20, last para. “The mission modules may be pre-classified as a "providing module" or a "consuming module"...”) in a first factory configuration (“a capability of the ship to carry out the predefined tasks”; See at least: text copy page 5 of 20, last para. on the page “Such capability data defines a capability of the ship to carry out the predefined tasks. Examples of different capabilities include, but are not limited to capability to conduct one or more of the functions listed in below table 1, i.e. to function as a:...” where the Examiner interprets any one of the table 1 list to be a first factory configuration), and a second factory unit (mission modules; See at least: figs. 1-4 and text copy page 3 of 20) of a second, different type (either of "providing module" or "consuming module"; See at least: text copy page 8 of 20 where the opposite of the first type above is selected) in a second factory configuration (“a capability of the ship to carry out the predefined tasks”; See at least: text copy page 5 of 20, last para. on the page where the Examiner interprets any one of the table 1 list not selected above to be a second factory configuration), and wherein the given one of the docking ports is configured to provide services (“power, ventilation, communications, water, and data”; See at least: page 13 of 20, 6th para. on the page) to a factory unit (mission modules; See at least: figs. 1-4 and text copy page 3 of 20) docked therein;...
However, Christiansen et al. does not explicitly disclose a warehouse onboard the ocean-going vessel configured to store factory units of different types; and conveyance tracks implemented on the deck, wherein the conveyance tracks are configured to facilitate conveying a given factory unit between the warehouse and ones of the docking ports on respective predefined paths (See at least: text copy page 2 of 20, 9th para. on the page “to allow modularization in a fast and safe manner while the ocean-going vessel is in operation, i.e. away from the shipyard or similar manufacturing facility. It is a further object to allow exchange of modules in an autonomous manner without interaction with external help e.g., from a shipyard or repair yard, or without control e.g., from a classification society or a naval rules administration...” and text copy page 13 of 20, 8th para. on the page “The mission modules could be placed in the mission docking positions by use of on-board cranes, e.g., small cranes configured to handle e.g., 15 tons.” Examiner interprets that the invention of Christiansen et al. can swap out the different mission modules independently using the ship’s own resources and therefore there must be storage for different mission modules onboard the ship, however this storage location was not explicitly disclosed.).
Szychlinski in a similar field of endeavor, teaches disclose a warehouse (“cargo deck”, “central decks”, port and starboard inclined decks, “cargo space”; See at least: ,“cargo deck” col. 5 line 11, “central decks 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37... starboard inclined decks... 38S, 39S, 40S, 41S and 42S... port side... 38P, 39P, 40P, 41P and 42P...” col. 5 lines 44-54, “cargo space” col. 6 line 36, where the Examiner interprets any cargo deck/space or deck being used to store cargo as a warehouse) onboard the ocean-going vessel (“large ships and vessels”; See at least: See at least Figs. 1-43 for different vessel embodiments and col. 1 line 9) configured to store factory units (“cargo”; See at least: “various types of cargo of various shapes, sizes and lengths, including unitized cargo, pallets, containers, boxcars, vehicles, trailers, auto- mobiles, and automobile trailers” col. 2 lines 67-70) of different types (See at least: list of cargo cited above); and conveyance tracks (“conveyorized systems”; See at least: col. 6 lines 72-75 and col. 7 lines 1-2 “known conveyorized systems which might include overhead mono or multi-rails with appropriate supporting rigs which would readily support such heavy loads, or deck rails, conveyorized rollers, chain conveyors and so forth, or on their own wheels, if so equipped.” Examiner notes that deck rails best match the Applicants disclosure.) implemented on the deck (See at least: “cargo deck” col. 5 line 11, “central decks 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37... starboard inclined decks... 38S, 39S, 40S, 41S and 42S... port side... 38P, 39P, 40P, 41P and 42P...” col. 5 lines 44-54,), wherein the conveyance tracks are configured to facilitate conveying a given factory unit (“cargo”; See at least: citation above) between the warehouse and ones of the docking ports on respective predefined paths (“final stowage position”; See at least: col. 6 lines 68-72 “Containers also may be delivered in a like manner to that described for handling pallets. They could be routed about the ship to final stowage position through the use of various types of known conveyorized systems...” where the conveyorized systems define predefined paths throughout the ship).
However, Szychlinski does not teach ones of the docking ports.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified ship 2 of Christiansen et al. with “cargo deck”, “central decks”, port and starboard inclined decks, “cargo space” and “conveyorized systems” of Szychlinski with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of having a ship that allows a continuous flow of cargo and more efficient utilization of the internal space (See at least: col. 7 lines 9-10, “...more effective space utilization in the ship would be achieved...” and col. 9 line 63 “...permit a continuous flow of cargo...”).
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Kuriiwa (US 4747334 A) teaches an ocean launching apparatus of a space rocket where the invention inspects a satellite and assembles with rocket (See at least: figs. 1-5). This is relevant to at least claim 1.
Rosen (US 20120138700 A1) teaches a navigable vessel that produces artificial snow which has a water intake, produces "water" and refrigeration equipment 48 assembles "snow" (See at least: figs. 1-4 and abstract). This is relevant to at least claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
/LARS A OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615B
Prosecution Insights