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 .
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/394,497, filed on 5 August 2021, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application (i.e., a propulsor and related propulsor claim limitations). Note that a propulsor is a broader term than a fan. Although applicant has disclosed a type of propulsor, i.e., a fan, the original specification of the parent cases (16/667,154; 16/125,179; 15/606,494; 14/859,381; 14/604,811; 13/623,309; 13/342,508; and provisional 61/494,453) do not provide support to other types of propulsors. As an example, a propeller. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
Note: claims 1-2, and 4-20 are being examined with an effective filing date of 17 January 2025; and, claim 3 is being examined with an effective filing date of 3 January 2012.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-11 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 6 recites the limitation “said flexible support lateral stiffness”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-11 depend from claim 6 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said fan shaft support lateral stiffness”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Note that both claims 8 and 12 include respective limitations that are already recited in claim 1, therefore, claim 8 and 12 fail to further limit the subject matter included in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of McCune (US 10,227,893 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claims are broader in at least one aspect and also recite additional features not claimed in the patent claims.
For claim 1:
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claims, the following comparison between the patent claims and the application claims highlights (see underlined features in the patent claims) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the application claims.
Patent claim 21
Application claim 1
A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a fan shaft driving a fan having fan blades;
a fan shaft support that supports said fan shaft;
a gear system connected to said fan shaft, said gear system includes a gear mesh defining a gear mesh lateral stiffness and a gear mesh transverse stiffness;
a flexible support supporting said gear system and defining a flexible support lateral stiffness and a flexible support transverse stiffness; and wherein at least one of said flexible support lateral stiffness and said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 8% of a respective one of said gear mesh lateral stiffness and said gear mesh transverse stiffness;
further comprising a ring gear defining a ring gear transverse stiffness and said ring gear transverse stiffness is less than 20% of said gear mesh transverse stiffness;
wherein both said flexible support lateral stiffness and said flexible support transverse stiffness are less than 8% of a respective one of said gear mesh lateral stiffness and said gear mesh transverse stiffness;
further comprising a low fan pressure ratio of less than about 1.45, said low fan pressure ratio measured across the fan blades alone, and wherein said gear system includes a reduction ratio greater than 2.3;
wherein said fan shaft support defines a fan shaft support lateral stiffness and said flexible support lateral stiffness is less than 11% of said fan shaft support lateral stiffness;
wherein said flexible support defines a flexible support transverse stiffness and said fan shaft support defines a fan shaft support transverse stiffness and said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 20% of said fan shaft support transverse stiffness;
wherein said flexible support lateral stiffness is less than 11% of said fan shaft support lateral stiffness and said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 11% of said fan shaft support transverse stiffness.
A gas turbine engine, comprising:
a propulsor having propulsor blades; a propulsor shaft for driving the propulsor;
a propulsor shaft support that supports said propulsor shaft, said propulsor shaft support defining a propulsor shaft support transverse stiffness;
a gear system connected to said propulsor shaft, said gear system includes a gear mesh defining a gear mesh transverse stiffness; and
a flexible support which supports said gear system relative to a static structure and defines a flexible support transverse stiffness, wherein said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 11% of said propulsor shaft support transverse stiffness and said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 8% of said gear mesh transverse stiffness.
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that patent claim 21 includes features that are not in application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 1 is anticipated by patent claim 21, with respect to the broadening aspect, then application claim 1 is obvious over patent claim 21 with respect to the broadening aspect.
With respect to the additional features recited in application claim 1, patent claim 21 fails to recite the a propulsor and the limitations associated to a propulsor instead of a fan. However, McKibbin
teaches geared drive system employing a planetary gear train conveys torque and rotary motion from a
source thereof to a bladed component (abstract), said component being a propulsor (Fig.1/2) potentially
including a fan (Fig.1, 4) or a propeller (Fig.2, 4). Since the patent claim recites the use of a geared drive
system to convey torque to a fan and McKibbin teach that geared drive systems could be used to convey
torque to a fan or a propeller (i.e., propulsors), it would have been obvious before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the fan and
associated fan components and replace them with a propeller and the resulting associated propeller
components as taught by McKibbin as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain
predictable results of helping generate a force allowing aircraft to fly.
For claim 13, the recited limitations are contained in patent claim 21 in view of McKibbin.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of McCune (US 10,301,968 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
For purposes of brevity, a full comparison of the patent claim and the instant application is not included herein, however, the same analysis discussed in Section 7 above applies for claim 2 of McCune (US 10,301,968 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of McCune (US 10,590,802 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
For purposes of brevity, a full comparison of the patent claim and the instant application is not included herein, however, the same analysis discussed in Section 7 above applies for claim 1 of McCune (US 10,590,802 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of McCune (US 11,021,997 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
For purposes of brevity, a full comparison of the patent claim and the instant application is not included herein, however, the same analysis discussed in Section 7 above applies for claim 5 of McCune (US 11,021,997 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of McCune (US 11,021,996 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
For purposes of brevity, a full comparison of the patent claim and the instant application is not included herein, however, the same analysis discussed in Section 7 above applies for claim 8 of McCune (US 11,021,996 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of McCune (US 11,111,818 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
For purposes of brevity, a full comparison of the patent claim and the instant application is not included herein, however, the same analysis discussed in Section 7 above applies for claim 1 of McCune (US 11,111,818 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of McCune (US 11,698,007 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
For purposes of brevity, a full comparison of the patent claim and the instant application is not included herein, however, the same analysis discussed in Section 7 above applies for claim 2 of McCune (US 11,698,007 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCune (US 20170335718 A1; also US 10,227,893 B2) in view of McKibbin (US 5,466,198 A).
Regarding claim 1, McCune teaches a gas turbine engine (Fig.1-10), comprising:
a fan having fan blades (42);
a fan shaft for driving the fan (76);
a fan shaft support (82) that supports said fan shaft, said fan shaft support defining a fan shaft support transverse stiffness (¶23);
a gear system (60) connected to said fan shaft, said gear system includes a gear mesh defining a gear mesh transverse stiffness (¶18); and
a flexible support (78) which supports said gear system relative to a static structure (36) and defines a flexible support transverse stiffness (¶6), wherein said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 11% of said fan shaft support transverse stiffness (¶16) and said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 8% of said gear mesh transverse stiffness (¶20).
Although McCune discloses a fan, McCune does not explicitly teach a propulsor and the related propulsor limitations.
McKibbin teaches geared drive system employing a planetary gear train conveys torque and rotary motion from a source thereof to a bladed component (abstract), said component being a propulsor (Fig.1/2) potentially including a fan (Fig.1, 4) or a propeller (Fig.2, 4). McKibbin teach that geared drive systems could be used to convey torque to a fan or a propeller (i.e., propulsors).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the fan of McCune and associated fan components and replace them with a propeller and the resulting associated propeller components as taught by McKibbin as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of helping generate a force allowing aircraft to fly.
Regarding claim 2, McCune and McKibbin further teach said propulsor shaft support defines a propulsor shaft support lateral stiffness and said flexible support defines a flexible support lateral stiffness and said flexible support lateral stiffness is less than 11% of said propulsor shaft support lateral stiffness (McCune claim 19).
Regarding claim 4, McCune and McKibbin further teach a mid-turbine frame including at least one airfoil extending into a flow path (McCune ¶41), and wherein said propulsor shaft support is a K-frame bearing support (McCune ¶47).
Regarding claim 5, McCune and McKibbin further teach the gear system has a reduction ratio greater than 2.3 (McCune ¶42).
Regarding claim 6, McCune and McKibbin further teach said gear mesh defines a gear mesh lateral stiffness and said flexible support lateral stiffness is less than 8% of said gear mesh lateral stiffness (McCune ¶53).
Regarding claim 7, McCune and McKibbin further teach a high speed spool including a two stage high pressure turbine, and a low speed spool including a low pressure turbine with an inlet, an outlet, and a low pressure turbine pressure ratio greater than 5:1, wherein said low pressure turbine pressure ratio is a ratio of a pressure measured prior to said inlet as related to a pressure at said outlet prior to any exhaust nozzle (McCune claim 6).
Regarding claim 8, McCune and McKibbin further teach said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 8% of said gear mesh transverse stiffness (McCune ¶20).
Regarding claim 9, McCune and McKibbin further teach an input coupling defining an input coupling transverse stiffness, wherein said input coupling transverse stiffness is less than 20% of said propulsor shaft support transverse stiffness (McCune ¶44 and claim 23).
Regarding claim 10, McCune and McKibbin further teach said input coupling transverse stiffness is less than 11% of said propulsor shaft support transverse stiffness (McCune ¶16).
Regarding claim 11, McCune and McKibbin further teach said input coupling defines an input coupling lateral stiffness and said input coupling lateral stiffness is less than 11% of said fan shaft support lateral stiffness (McCune ¶44 and claim 24).
Regarding claim 12, McCune and McKibbin further teach said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 11% of said propulsor shaft support transverse stiffness (McCune claim 21).
Regarding claim 13, McCune teaches a gas turbine engine (Fig.1-10), comprising:
propulsor means for providing propulsion (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a propulsor/fan to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. McCune teaches a fan 42);
a fan shaft (76) driving the propulsor means;
a fan shaft support (82) that supports said fan shaft, said fan shaft support defining a fan shaft support transverse stiffness (¶23);
a reduction means for reducing a rotational speed of an output that drives the fan means relative to an input (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as an epicyclic gear train to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. McCune teaches 60), said reduction means includes a gear mesh means defining a gear mesh lateral stiffness (¶18); and
a flexible support means for supporting said reduction means (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a support to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. McCune teaches 78) relative to a static structure (36), the flexible support means defining a flexible support transverse stiffness and a flexible support lateral stiffness (¶6), wherein said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 11% of said fan shaft support transverse stiffness (¶16), and said flexible support lateral stiffness is less than 8% of said gear mesh lateral stiffness (claim 17).
Although McCune discloses a fan, McCune does not explicitly teach a propulsor and the related propulsor limitations.
McKibbin teaches geared drive system employing a planetary gear train conveys torque and rotary motion from a source thereof to a bladed component (abstract), said component being a propulsor (Fig.1/2) potentially including a fan (Fig.1, 4) or a propeller (Fig.2, 4). McKibbin teach that geared drive systems could be used to convey torque to a fan or a propeller (i.e., propulsors).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the fan of McCune and associated fan components and replace them with a propeller and the resulting associated propeller components as taught by McKibbin as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of helping generate a force allowing aircraft to fly.
Regarding claim 14, McCune and McKibbin further teach said gear mesh means defines a gear mesh transverse stiffness and said flexible support transverse stiffness is less than 8% of said gear mesh transverse stiffness (McCune claim 17).
Regarding claim 15, McCune and McKibbin further teach compression means (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as compression stages to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. McCune teaches 24) for compressing airflow from the propulsor means, and expansion means (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as expansion stages to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. McCune teaches 28) for driving the compression means in response to expanding airflow across the expansion means (McCune ¶38).
Regarding claim 16, McCune and McKibbin further teach the compression means includes a plurality of compression stages (McCune Fig.1, 24), and the expansion means includes a plurality of expansion stages (McCune Fig.1, 28).
Regarding claim 17, McCune and McKibbin further teach the compression means is a three stage compressor (McCune Fig.1, 44), and the expansion means is a two stage turbine (McCune Fig.1, 54).
Regarding claim 18, McCune and McKibbin further teach a mid-turbine frame including at least one airfoil extending into a flow path (McCune ¶41).
Regarding claim 19, McCune and McKibbin further teach the input is an input coupling that has an input coupling transverse stiffness, wherein said input coupling transverse stiffness is less than 20% of said propulsor shaft support transverse stiffness (McCune ¶15).
Regarding claim 20, McCune and McKibbin further teach the reduction means includes an epicyclic gear train that has a gear reduction ratio of greater than 2.5 (McCune ¶42, note greater than about 2.3 includes greater than 2.5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745