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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/01/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference character 39 in Figure 6 and reference character 1108 in Figure 11.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed motor configurations recited in claim 8 of vibrating the chamber, pushing a secondary piston into the chamber, and driving a pump configured to drive and/or pulsate the piston into the NNF must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), Applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0057 recites “handing” rather than “handling.”
Paragraph 0110 identifies the parking brake as element 121. The parking brake is otherwise consistently identified as element 21.
Paragraph 0137 identifies element 30 as a “control valve.” Element 30 is the brake valve; the control valve is element 37.
Paragraph 0164 identifies element 30 as the control valve three times. The first two references to “control valve 30” should refer to “brake valve 30,” while the final reference concerning activation by the NNF should refer to “control valve 37.”
Paragraphs 0181, 0204, and 0227 use reference character 36 for a “secondary piston,” although character 36 already designates the primary piston. A distinct reference character should be assigned to the secondary piston.
Reference character 405 in paragraphs 0222 and 0223 should be corrected to 404 to identify the first time period, consistent with Figure 4 and paragraphs 0170-172.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 incorrectly depends from claim 1. Because claim 11 is the vehicle claim, claim 12 should be amended to depend from claim 11.
Claims 10 and 12 recite “an indication indicative of a brake request and subsequently detection.” The phrase should be corrected to read “an indication indicative of a brake request and a subsequent detection.”
Claim 13 recites “by a processing circuitry” which is grammatically improper. The wording should be corrected to “by processing circuitry” or “by the processing circuitry.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 15 recites a “computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 13,” but does not recite a physical or tangible medium or other structural limitation. Further, the specification expressly provides that the computer program may be stored on a “transitory or non-transitory computer-usable or computer-readable storage medium” (¶ 0246). Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the full claim scope of "computer program product" encompasses non-statutory subject matter, including software per se and transitory embodiments.
As set forth in MPEP 2106.03(II), “A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Such claims fail the first step (Step 1: NO) and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason.”. Accordingly, in the present case, the claim is directed to “software per se”, which is not patent eligible.
“The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24,2009; p. 2.”
The scope of “computer program product” therefore includes signal-based mediums. A signal per se does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because it is an ephemeral, transient signal and thus is non-statutory. Since the scope of “computer program product" includes these non-statutory instances, claim 15 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (US 20210237702 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 114572177 A).
Regarding claim 1, Beier discloses a pneumatic braking arrangement for a vehicle (two-circuit brake system 1 of vehicle 100) comprising:
a source of pressurized air (pressure-medium reservoirs 8a-8b);
a parking brake comprising a spring (spring-loaded parts 3b), wherein the parking brake is operative to brake the vehicle based on a compression state of the spring (spring pretensioning applies wheel brakes 3 when spring-loaded brake pressure p3b decreases), and wherein the pneumatic braking arrangement is configured to control the compression state of the spring based on a first air pressure supplied from the source of pressurized air (spring-loaded brake pressure p3b supplied from reservoir 8c) (see ¶¶ 0039-43; Fig. 1);
a piston (first control piston 15a) and a chamber (first control chamber 14a), wherein the piston is moveable within the chamber; and
a control valve (12) operative to control the first air pressure (control valve 12 controlling spring-loaded brake pressure p3b), wherein the control valve is fluidly connected with the chamber (first control chamber 14a within control valve 12), and wherein the control valve is configured to release the first air pressure from the source of pressurized air (control output 12c connected to venting connection 12e to reduce p3b) (see ¶¶ 0047-49, 0059; Fig. 2).
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the chamber contains a Non-Newtonian Fluid (NNF); a brake valve operative to push the piston into the NNF in response to a brake request applied to the brake valve, or wherein the control valve is configured to release the first air pressure from the source of pressurized air dependent on a first force applied by the NNF to the control valve.
Wang teaches a chamber (102) that contains a Non-Newtonian Fluid (NNF) (magnetorheological fluid 104) (see Fig. 1); a piston moveable within the chamber and into the NNF (pushrod 107, which Wang describes as a piston-type structure, inserted into storage cavity 102 containing fluid 104); a brake valve operative to push the piston into the NNF in response to a brake request applied to the brake valve (brake pedal 200 moving piston type push rod 107 into magnetorheological fluid 104, see Figs. 1-2); and a first force applied by the NNF to a valve actuating member (magnetorheological fluid 104 transmitting force from piston-type pushrod 107 through output piston 105 to pneumatic valve cores 112, 123) (see Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Beier's first control chamber 14a and control-piston interface of control valve 12 in accordance with Wang's NNF-actuated arrangement by providing first control chamber 14a with Wang's magnetorheological fluid 104 and piston-type pushrod 107, such that a brake request pushes piston-type pushrod 107 into the NNF and the resulting NNF force is applied to Beier’s control piston 15a and venting mechanism in order to eliminate idle brake-pedal travel and make braking effect correlate with brake-pedal actuation.
Beier's reservoir 8c, control output 12c, supply connection 12d, venting connection 12e, control piston 15a, and spring-loaded parts 3b would be retained. In the resulting combination, Wang's piston-type pushrod 107 serves as the claimed piston, Beier's first control chamber 14a as modified to contain Wang's magnetorheological fluid 104 serves as the claimed NF-containing chamber, and Beier's control valve 12 remains fluidly connected with chamber 14a and is actuated dependent on the NNF force applied to control piston 15a.
Regarding claim 2, Beier as modified discloses the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 1, further comprising a service brake operative to, in response to the brake request, brake the vehicle by applying a second air pressure to the service brake (front-axle wheel brakes 2 actuated by front-axle brake pressure p2 in response to service-brake braking specification VB) (see ¶¶ 0032-34; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Beier as modified discloses the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 2, and further discloses, or renders obvious, wherein the pneumatic braking arrangement is configured such that a brake force applied by the service brake is increasing during a first time period of applying the second air pressure (front-axle brake pressure p2 built up to the value corresponding to service-brake braking specification VB) (see ¶ 0033). Increase p2 from its initial valve to the requested value predictably increases the corresponding service-brake force during that pressure buildup.
Regarding claim 5, Beier as modified discloses the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 1, wherein the pneumatic braking arrangement is configured such that a brake force of the vehicle is based on a viscosity property of the NNF (high-viscosity fluid 104 transmits pedal movement to piston 105 for mechanical braking, whereas low-viscosity fluid permits an idle stroke) (see ¶ 0044).
Regarding claim 6, Beier as modified discloses the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 1.
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the pneumatic braking arrangement is configured such that a brake force of the vehicle is limited by the control valve being configured to limit a release of the first air pressure such that the control valve is configured to release the first air pressure at most for the duration of a set second time period and/or such that the control valve is configured to release the first air pressure until a set minimum amount of air pressure is applied to the parking brake.
Beier teaches that valve body 22 closes the connection between control output 12c and venting connection 12e, thereby maintaining spring-loaded brake pressure p3b, that movement of valve body 22 is governed by opposing pressure and spring forces, and that area ration F is selected to set the portion of braking action produced by spring-loaded parts 3b. The second recited alternative is relied upon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calibrate Beier’s area ration F and valve force balance so that valve body 22 closes the connection to venting connection 12e when spring-loaded brake pressure p3b reaches a set minimum, because such calibration would predictably establish the pressure equilibrium at which venting terminates and thereby limit spring-brake application to the selected portion of braking action contemplated by Beier (see ¶¶ 0058-60).
Regarding claim 9, Beier as modified discloses the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 1, wherein the brake valve is a footbrake valve connected with a brake pedal of the vehicle (brake valve connected with brake pedal 200), and wherein the brake request is a fourth force applied to the brake pedal, and wherein the pneumatic braking arrangement is configured such that the piston is arranged to be pushed into the NNF with a second force dependent on the fourth force applied to the brake pedal (pedal 200 mechanically driving piston-type pushrod 107 into fluid 104) (see ¶ 0033; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Beier as modified discloses the vehicle comprising the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 1 (towing vehicle 100 comprising brake system 1) (see ¶ 0032).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (US 20210237702 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 114572177 A), and further in view of Boundy et al. (US 20230133625 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Beier as modified discloses the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 2.
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the pneumatic braking arrangement is configured such that the NNF has a viscosity property causing the NNF to have an increased or maintained viscosity for at least a first time period when being pushed by the piston by a second force above a threshold.
Boundy teaches an NNF having a viscosity property causing the NNF to have an increased viscosity when being pushed by a piston by a force above a threshold (shear-thickening fluid 42 abruptly increasing in viscosity when force applied by piston 36 produces a shear rate that reaches the transition into zone B) (see ¶¶ 0030, 0040, 0046; Fig. 1C).
Although Boundy does not expressly disclose the duration of the increased-viscosity condition, Boundy teaches that zone B represents a range of shear rates over which the viscosity is increased. It would have been understood that the increased viscosity is maintained during the interval in which piston movement produces a shear rate within zone B, thereby corresponding to the claimed “at least a first time period” (see ¶ 0040; Fig. 1C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Boundy's shear-thickening fluid 42 in Wang’s NNF chamber 102such that the fluid increases in viscosity when the piston-applied force exceeds the shear threshold and remains at the increased viscosity during the continuing above-threshold condition, in order to slow or stop piston movement during high-force actuation (see Boundy ¶¶ 0040, 0046).
Wang’s piston-to-valve force path would be retained; only the NNF composition and shear threshold would be selected according to Boundy.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (US 20210237702 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 114572177 A), and further in view of Bettin et al. (US 20070107778 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Beier as modified discloses the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 1.
Beier does not expressly disclose further comprising a motor operative to excite the NNF such that a viscosity of the NNF is increased or maintained, wherein exciting the NNF comprises applying a third force to the NNF using the motor, and wherein the pneumatic braking arrangement is configured such that the motor is configured to excite the NNF in response to a trigger condition.
Bettin teaches further comprising a motor operative to excite the NNF such that a viscosity of the NNF is increased or maintained (motor 1503 and eccentric arm 1505 applying controlled vibrations to shear-responsive fluid); wherein exciting the NNF comprises applying a third force to the NNF using the motor (controlled vibratory stress applied to the fluid); and wherein the pneumatic braking arrangement is configured such that the motor is configured to excite the NNF in response to a trigger condition (sensor-responsive activation based on an actual or anticipated impact) (see ¶¶ 0010-11. 0058; Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Wang's NNF chamber with Bettin's motor-driven actuator in order to actively increase or maintain the viscosity of the NNF through controlled vibration (see Bettin ¶¶ 0010-11).
Regarding claim 8, Beier as modified discloses the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 7.
Beier does not expressly disclose wherein the motor is configured to excite the NNF by at least one of:
vibrating the chamber;
pushing a secondary piston into the chamber with a force increasing or maintaining the viscosity of the NNF; and
driving a pump configured to drive and/or pulsate the piston into the NNF.
Bettin teaches a motor-driven actuator applying vibrations to a shear-responsive fluid (motor 1503, eccentric arm 1505, and actuator array 1501) and separately teaches a fluid container having a transducer attached to a side wall (wall-mounted transducer) (see ¶ 0058; Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount Bettin's motor-driven actuator 1501 to a side wall of Wang’s chamber 102 so that the actuator vibrates the chamber in order to transmit controlled motor-generated vibrations through the chamber wall into the contained NNF and thereby vary its viscosity (see Bettin ¶¶ 0010, 0058, and 0061).
The firs recited alternative, vibrating the chamber (Wang chamber 102 vibrated by wall-mounted Bettin actuator 1501), is relied upon.
Claims 10, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (US 20210237702 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 114572177 A), and further in view of Flodin et al. (WO 2021246930 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Beier as modified discloses the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 1 comprised in vehicle 100.
Beier does not expressly disclose a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to handle the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 1, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
control the control valve to maintain or increase the first air pressure in response to at least one of:
a detection that a current brake force applied by the vehicle is above a threshold; and
an indication indicative of a brake request and subsequently detection that a predetermined time period since obtaining the indication has expired.
Flodin teaches a vehicle brake-control computer system (control arrangement 10 comprising process 101 and memory 102) that controls pneumatic brake valves and pressures (see ¶¶ 0062-67; Fig. 3B).
Flodin further teaches obtaining an indication indicative of a brake request (service-brake demand) and controlling brake pressure during periods shorter than a maximum pulse length, after which EPB pressure is again controlled based on spring-brake demand (see ¶¶ 0068-70, and 0075-77). Flodin also teaches increasing EPB pressure to avoid spring-brake locking while PCV 14 holds service-brake pressure (see ¶ 0082; Fig. 6).
Flodin does not expressly disclose “subsequently detection that a predetermined time period since obtaining the indication has expired” or processor control of Beier's control valve 12. However, Flodin teaches initiating pressure control in response to a service-brake demand and performing that control during a prescribed period limited by a maximum pulse length. The second recited alternative is relied upon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Flodin's processor-controlled valve arrangement to Beier’s control valve 12, whose valve body 22 already selectively connects control output 12c to supply connection 12d or venting connection 12e, or closes those connections, in order to permit processor 101 to place control valve 12 in its vent-closed pressure-maintaining state or its supply-connected pressure increasing state (see Flodin ¶¶ 0064-67 and Beier ¶¶ 0054-55).
Because Flodin prescribes a pressure-control period limited by a maximum pulse length following receipt of a service-brake demand, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the prescribed period by configuring processor 101 to start a timer when the service-brake demand is obtained and, upon detecting expiration of that predetermined period, command control valve 12 to maintain or increase spring-loaded brake pressure p3b in order to limit the duration of spring-brake pressure reduction and avoid rear-axle locking while service-brake pressure is held (see Flodin ¶¶ 0068-70, and 0082).
Regarding claim 12, Beier as modified for claim 10, further discloses the vehicle of claim 1 (vehicle 100 containing the modified Beier braking arrangement), further comprising a computer system comprising processing circuitry configured to handle the pneumatic braking arrangement, the pneumatic braking arrangement being comprised in the vehicle (Flodin control arrangement 10 comprising processor 101 and memory 102), and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
control the control valve to maintain or increase the first air pressure (processor 101 and the actuation modification established for claim 10 controlling Beier control valve 12 to maintain or increase p3b) in response to at least one of:
a detection that a current brake force applied by the vehicle is above a threshold; and
an indication indicative of a brake request and subsequently detection that a predetermined time period since obtaining the indication has expired (service-brake demand followed by expiration of the maximum-pulse timer) (see Flodin ¶¶ 0062-70, 0075,-77, 0082 and Beier ¶¶ 0054-55). The second recited alternative is relied upon.
Regarding claim 13, Beier as modified for claim 10, disclose or render obvious a computer-implemented method for handling the pneumatic braking arrangement of claim 1 (method performed by Flodin control arrangement 10 for the modified Beier braking arrangement), the method comprising:
by a processing circuitry of a computer system, controlling the control valve to maintain or increase the first air pressure (processor 101 and the timer modification controlling Beier control valve 12 to maintain or increase p3b), wherein controlling the control valve is performed in response to at least one of:
detecting that a current brake force applied by the vehicle is above a threshold; and
obtaining an indication indicative of a brake request and subsequently detecting that a predetermined time period since obtaining the indication has expired (obtaining the service-brake demand and detecting expiration of the maximum-pulse timer) (see Flodin ¶¶ 0062-70, 0075-77, 0082 and Beier ¶¶ 0054-55). The second recited alternative is relied upon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform, using Flodin’s processor 101, the timer and valve operation established for claim 10 as a computer-implemented method in order to limit spring-brake pressure reduction and avoid rear-axle locking while maintaining the requested service-brake pressure.
Regarding claim 15, Beier as modified for claim 13, further discloses a computer program product comprising program code for performing, when executed by the processing circuitry, the method of claim 13 (computer program P executed by processor 101) (see ¶¶ 0020, 0063).
Regarding claim 16, Beier as modified for claim 13, further disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to perform the method of claim 13 (EPROM or flash memory 102 storing computer program P) (see ¶¶ 0021, 0062-63).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beier et al. (US 20210237702 A1) in view of Wang et al. (CN 114572177 A), and Flodin et al. (WO 2021246930 A1), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Bettin et al. (US 20070107778 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Beier as modified 334discloses the method according to claim 13.
Beier does not expressly disclose by the processing circuitry of the computer system, exciting the NNF of the pneumatic braking arrangement by applying a third force to the NNF using a motor comprised in the pneumatic braking arrangement.
Bettin teaches exciting an NNF by applying a third force to the NNF using a motor (motor 1503 driving eccentric arm 1505 to apply vibrations to shear-responsive fluid) (see ¶ 0058; Fig. 15). Bettin does not expressly disclose that the motor is commanded by Flodin's processing circuitry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Bettin's motor 1503 and eccentric arm 1505 to Wang's NNF chamber and configure Flodin’s processor 101 to provide the control signal to oscillator 1510 in order to actively control the viscosity of the NNF through motor-generated oscillations as part of the computer-implemented brake-control method (see Bettin ¶¶ 0010, 0058 and Flodin ¶¶ 0062-63).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karem Akram Algarash whose telephone number is (571)272-5789. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached at 571-272-7124. 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.
/K.A/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3616
/DAVID R MORRIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights