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 filed January 7, 2025 has been considered.
________________________________________
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step") are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step") are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation "energy absorption means configured to absorb energy when the coupler head collides with a corresponding coupler head of another car of the multi-car vehicle" in claim 19 is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The claimed function is absorbing energy when the coupler heads collide. The corresponding structure is draft gear 2 incorporating a hydraulic damper, a rubber bearing, and a deformation tube, arranged between coupler head 1 and the car body through mounting plate 3 as described in paragraphs [0059] and [0061] and shown in Figures 1A-1B, together with statutory equivalents.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Claim 11 depends from claim 7 but recites "the locking pin" and "the at least one hole." Claim 7 does not introduce either a locking pin or a hole; those terms first appear as one alternative in claim 8. It is therefore unclear which previously recited structure supplies the antecedent basis for those terms and which limitations are included in the claimed combination. Claim 12 depends from claim 11 and inherits the same uncertainty.
Suggested Correction: Amend claim 11 to depend from claim 8, if that dependency expresses the intended subject matter, and retain claim 12's dependency from corrected claim 11. Alternatively, amend claim 11 to introduce a locking pin and at least one hole and to state their structural relationship to the locking element. Any amendment must preserve support in the original disclosure and must not introduce new matter.
________________________________________
References Used
Reference 1 (Primary) - US 2,729,343 A.
Reference 2 - US 937,023 A.
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102
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.
Reference 1 issued January 3, 1956, names another inventor, and was publicly available before the December 19, 2023 effective filing date. It qualifies under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) A coupler head for a coupler assembly of a multi-car rail vehicle, comprising: (L2) a coupler head body, a knuckle configured for cooperating with a corresponding knuckle of another coupler head, and a knuckle pin having a knuckle pin axis, wherein the knuckle pin is mounted to the coupler head body and the knuckle is mounted to the knuckle pin so that the knuckle is rotatable about the knuckle pin axis relative to the coupler head body between a coupled position and an uncoupled position, (L3) a first lock which is configured to be moved, when the knuckle is in the coupled position, into a locking position in which it prevents rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the uncoupled position, and (L4) a second lock which is configured to prevent, when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position, rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, wherein the second lock is further configured to unlock when a predetermined force, which acts on the knuckle so as to rotate the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, is exceeded, so that the second lock no longer hinders rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis (A) toward the coupled position.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 discloses a railroad-car coupler. (L2) Draw head 10 carries knuckle 11 on vertical pivot pin 12 so the knuckle rotates between open and closed positions and cooperates with a mating knuckle of another coupler (columns 1-2; column 4, lines 31-62; Figures 1-3). (L3) Reference 1 describes the conventional knuckle locking device that holds knuckle 11 in the closed position after coupling (column 1, line 53 through column 2, line 8). (L4) Frangible wedge 15 is interposed between knuckle-tail face 13 and draw-head surface 14 and locks the knuckle open against minor forces. Reference 1 expressly distinguishes those minor forces from normal coupling force: when a mating coupler applies normal coupling force, the knuckle rotates toward closed position, disintegrates wedge 15, and the wedge falls away without impeding closure. The disclosed force boundary is the claimed predetermined-force threshold, and the destroyed wedge no longer hinders rotation (column 3, lines 1-38; column 4, lines 31-62; claims 1-4; Figures 1-3 and 8).
________________________________________
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) The coupler head of claim 1, (L2) wherein the second lock is configured to connect the knuckle to the coupler head body and keep the knuckle in a predetermined relative position with respect to the coupler head body when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 anticipates the claim 1 coupler head for the reasons stated in the claim 1 analysis. (L2) Wedge 15 simultaneously engages knuckle-tail face 13 and draw-head surface 14, thereby connecting knuckle 11 to draw head 10 and holding the knuckle at its predetermined open position until coupling force disintegrates the wedge (column 4, lines 31-62; claims 1-4; Figure 3).
________________________________________
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) The coupler head of claim 1, (L2) wherein, when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position and the second lock is in a state in which it prevents rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, the second lock is visible from outside the coupler head.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 anticipates the claim 1 coupler head for the reasons stated in the claim 1 analysis. (L2) Wedge 15 occupies the forwardly opening recess between knuckle 11 and draw head 10 and is shown exposed at the front of the open coupler. It is therefore visible from outside while holding the knuckle open (column 3, lines 10-24; column 4, lines 31-62; Figures 1-3).
________________________________________
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) The coupler head of claim 1, (L2) wherein, when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position and the second lock is in a state in which it prevents rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, the second lock is accessible and unlockable from outside the coupler head without a need to disassemble the coupler head.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 anticipates the claim 1 coupler head for the reasons stated in the claim 1 analysis. (L2) Wedge 15 is inserted into the forwardly opening coupler recess by an attendant positioned outside the rail-car path, so it is accessible without coupler disassembly. Normal exterior coupling force unlocks the second lock by disintegrating the wedge and allowing knuckle 11 to close, again without disassembly (column 3, lines 10-38; column 4, lines 31-75; column 5, lines 1-31; claim 7; Figures 1-3 and 12-13).
________________________________________
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) The coupler head of claim 1, (L2) wherein at least a part of the second lock is configured to deform when said predetermined force, which acts on the knuckle so as to rotate the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, is exceeded.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 anticipates the claim 1 coupler head for the reasons stated in the claim 1 analysis. (L2) Frangible wedge 15 breaks, crumbles, and disintegrates when closing force incident to a normal coupling operation exceeds the minor forces that it resists. Breaking and crumbling are deformation of at least part of the second lock under the claimed force condition (column 3, lines 1-38; column 4, lines 45-62; claims 1 and 3-4).
________________________________________
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) The coupler head of claim 1, (L2) wherein the second lock comprises a locking element which is configured to break when said predetermined force, which acts on the knuckle so as to rotate the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, is exceeded.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 anticipates the claim 1 coupler head for the reasons stated in the claim 1 analysis. (L2) Wedge 15 is expressly a frangible locking element that holds the knuckle open but breaks, crumbles, or disintegrates when the normal coupling force rotates the knuckle toward closed position (column 3, lines 1-38; column 4, lines 45-62; claims 1-4 and Figure 8).
________________________________________
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) A method of retrofitting a coupler head of a coupler assembly of a multi-car rail vehicle with a safety device, wherein the coupler head comprises: (L2) a coupler head body, a knuckle configured for cooperating with a corresponding knuckle of another coupler head, and a knuckle pin having a knuckle pin axis, wherein the knuckle pin is mounted to the coupler head body and the knuckle is mounted to the knuckle pin so that the knuckle is rotatable about the knuckle pin axis relative to the coupler head body between a coupled position and an uncoupled position, and (L3) a first lock which is configured to be moved, when the knuckle is in the coupled position, into a locking position in which it prevents rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the uncoupled position, the method comprising: (L4) providing the safety device in the form of a second lock, and (L5) mounting the second lock on the coupler head in such a manner that, when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position, the second lock is able to: (a) prevent rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, and (L6) (b) unlock, when a predetermined force, which acts on the knuckle so as to rotate the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, is exceeded, so that the second lock no longer hinders rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 teaches applying a safety device to the leading coupler of each railroad car to prevent accidental knuckle closure and improve operating safety. (L2) The existing standard coupler includes draw head 10, knuckle 11, and pivot pin 12, with the knuckle rotating between open and closed positions. (L3) It also includes the conventional closed-position knuckle locking device (columns 1-2; column 4, lines 31-45). (L4) The method provides frangible wedge 15 as the additional open-position lock. (L5) An attendant mounts wedge 15 in the forwardly opening recess between knuckle-tail face 13 and draw-head surface 14, where it prevents closure. (L6) When a mating coupler applies normal coupling force, wedge 15 disintegrates and falls away so it no longer hinders closing rotation (column 3, lines 1-50; column 4, lines 31-75; column 5, lines 1-31; claims 5-7; Figures 1-3 and 12-13).
________________________________________
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Reference 1.
Claim Text
(L1) The method of claim 17, further comprising at least one of: (L2) the safety device is mounted on the coupler head so as to keep the knuckle in a predetermined relative position with respect to the coupler head body when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position, (L3) the second lock is arranged such that, when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position and the second lock is in a state in which it prevents rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, the second lock is visible from outside the coupler head, (L4) the second lock is arranged such that, when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position and the second lock is in a state in which it prevents rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, the second lock is accessible and unlockable from outside the coupler head without a need to disassemble the coupler head, (L5) the second lock is arranged on a top side of the coupler head, or (L6) at least a part of the second lock is configured to deform when said predetermined force, which acts on the knuckle so as to rotate the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position, is exceeded.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 anticipates the claim 17 method for the reasons stated in the claim 17 analysis, and disclosure of at least one recited alternative satisfies the claim. (L2) Wedge 15 keeps knuckle 11 in its predetermined open position relative to draw head 10. (L3) The wedge is exposed in the forwardly opening recess and shown from the exterior in Figures 1-3. (L4) The wedge is inserted from outside by a trackside attendant and is unlocked by external coupling force without coupler disassembly. (L5) Reference 1 need not disclose this alternative because the claim requires at least one alternative. (L6) Reference 1 expressly teaches that wedge 15 breaks, crumbles, or disintegrates under normal coupling force (column 3, lines 1-50; column 4, lines 31-75; column 5, lines 1-31; claims 1-7; Figures 1-3 and 12-13).
________________________________________
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The coupler head of claim 1, (L2) wherein the second lock comprises a resilient element and a locking element, wherein the resilient element is arranged to provide, when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position, a resilient force urging the locking element into a locking position in which the locking element prevents the rotation of the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis, and (L3) wherein the locking element is arranged to move, when said predetermined force acting on the knuckle so as to rotate the knuckle about the knuckle pin axis toward the coupled position is exceeded, out of the locking position against the resilient force of the resilient element.
Analysis
(L1) Reference 1 teaches the claim 1 coupler head for the reasons stated in the claim 1 analysis. (L2) Reference 2 discloses a Janney-type coupler having coupler body A, knuckle E, conventional closed-position lock-bar F, coil spring H, and spring-actuated hollow slide-bar J. Spring H urges bar J forward so the bar and its pin connection act on knuckle arm E and yieldingly retain knuckle E in the open position (page 2, lines 75-110; page 3, lines 1-59; claims 3-6; Figures 1-5). Bar J is the locking element and spring H is the resilient element. (L3) When the opposing coupler section contacts head J, the opposing knuckle forces bar J rearward against spring H, allowing knuckle E to rotate closed. The opposing-coupler force thus moves the locking element out of its open-position lock against the resilient force (page 3, lines 60-75; page 4, claims 5-6; Figures 1-3).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace Reference 1's single-use frangible wedge with Reference 2's known spring-actuated, yielding open-knuckle retaining mechanism because Reference 2 teaches that its mechanism automatically retains the knuckle open until an opposing coupler contacts it and then yields to permit closure. The substitution would avoid replacing a destroyed wedge after each coupling while preserving Reference 1's safety function and would predictably provide a reusable second lock that yields under coupling force.
________________________________________
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The coupler head of claim 13, wherein the coupler head comprises at least one of: (L2) the resilient element of the second lock attached to one of (a) the coupler head body or the knuckle pin, or (b) the knuckle, and wherein the locking element of the second lock is configured to engage, when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position, with the respective other one of (a) the coupler head body or the knuckle pin, or (b) the knuckle, (L3) the locking element engaging a depression or hole when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position, or (L4) the locking element having a sloped surface by which it engages the hole or depression when the knuckle is in the uncoupled position.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 13 coupler head is taught by the combination for the reasons stated in the claim 13 analysis, and disclosure of at least one recited alternative satisfies the claim. (L2) Reference 2 mounts coil spring H in draw-bar B of coupler body A and uses spring-actuated bar J as the locking element. Bar J engages knuckle E through arm E, horizontal and vertical slots, and the connecting pin while the knuckle is retained open. This supplies the first recited body-to-knuckle alternative (page 2, lines 75-110; page 3, lines 1-59; Figures 2-5). (L3) The depression-or-hole alternative need not be separately shown because Reference 2 supplies the first alternative. (L4) The sloped-surface alternative likewise need not be separately shown.
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount Reference 2's resilient mechanism in Reference 1's coupler body and connect its sliding locking element to the knuckle as Reference 2 teaches, because that known arrangement keeps the mechanism aligned with the knuckle throughout opening and coupling and predictably transmits spring force between the coupler body and knuckle.
________________________________________
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2.
Claim Text
(L1) The coupler head of claim 13, (L2) wherein the resilient element comprises a compression spring arranged on a plunger, (L3) wherein the resilient element is configured to urge the locking element into the locking position.
Analysis
(L1) The claim 13 coupler head is taught by the combination for the reasons stated in the claim 13 analysis. (L2) Reference 2 discloses coil spring H aligned with and acting on hollow slide-bar J in the central opening of draw-bar B. Bar J translates as a plunger: it moves forward under spring force and is pressed rearward by the opposing knuckle. The coil spring is a compression spring arranged on the plunger assembly under the broadest reasonable interpretation (page 2, lines 75-110; page 3, lines 1-69; Figures 2-4). (L3) Spring H urges bar J forward into the position that yieldingly retains knuckle E open, which is the locking position of the second lock (page 3, lines 30-69; claims 3-6).
Motivation
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Reference 2's axially arranged compression spring and sliding plunger in the reusable second lock substituted for Reference 1's wedge because Reference 2 teaches that the compact coaxial arrangement automatically biases the open-position retaining member forward yet permits an opposing coupler to push it rearward. The known arrangement would predictably provide the resilient force and threshold-yielding motion required by the substituted lock.
________________________________________
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8-10, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 is allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Reference 1 does not place its wedge on the top side of the coupler as required by claim 5. The reviewed references do not teach or suggest the claim 8-12 combination of a bronze or stiff-polymer breaking portion or removable pin, the two-hole breaking-pin arrangement, the recited weakened portion, safety element, holder, detachable and reversible plunger, sleeve, and flag-hole alternatives. Reference 2 and US 8,800,792 B2 use separate spring and locking components and do not teach claim 15's locking element integral with the leaf spring. For claim 19, the closest reviewed collision structure, US 8,714,377 B2, discloses coupler head 46, deformation tube 50, and resilient draft gear mechanism 60, but does not disclose or establish a statutory equivalent of the corresponding combined hydraulic damper, rubber bearing, and deformation tube structure identified for the claimed energy absorption means. The focused component, family, citation, and applicant/inventor review did not supply the missing combinations.
________________________________________
Conclusion
Disposition: Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102. Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 5, 8-10, and 15 are objected to as dependent upon rejected base claims but contain allowable subject matter if rewritten in independent form including all inherited limitations. Claims 11-12 also contain allowable subject matter if rewritten to overcome the section 112(b) rejection and include all inherited limitations. Claim 19 is allowed.
________________________________________
Art Considered but Not Applied
US 7,497,345 B2 was reviewed for its retrofitted mechanism that biases a freight-car knuckle open, but it does not teach a second lock that ceases to hinder closure when a force threshold is exceeded.
US 8,800,792 B2 was reviewed for its automatically released hold-open mechanism and leaf spring, but its hooking rod is separate from the leaf spring and does not teach an integral leaf-spring locking element.
US 8,714,377 B2 was reviewed for coupler head 46, deformation tube 50, and resilient draft gear mechanism 60, but it does not disclose or establish equivalence to the combined structure corresponding to claim 19's energy absorption means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is (703)756-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Joseph Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
