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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,240,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent “anticipate” the claims of the application. Accordingly, the application claims are not patentably distinct from the patent claims. Here, more specific patent claims encompass the broader application claims.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16, line 2 recites “a fan”. It is unclear if this refers to the fan recited in base claim 1 or if this is an additional element. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Kupiszewski et al. (US 2018/0051702).
Regarding claim 1, Kupiszewski discloses an electric propulsor (Figure 3), comprising:
a core cowl (Annotated figure 3);
an outer cowl (206), a first air flowpath (244) being defined outward of the outer cowl (Figure 3) and a second air flowpath (221) being defined between the core cowl and the outer cowl (Figure 3);
one or more electric machines (246);
a fan (226) having a plurality of fan blades (228), the fan being rotatably drivable by at least one of the one or more electric machines (paragraph 33);
a booster (210) having a plurality of airfoils (axial compressors as shown in figure 3 necessarily comprise a plurality of airfoils) disposed at least in part in the second air flowpath (Figure 3), the booster being rotatably drivable by at least one of the one or more electric machines (paragraph 37) for compressing air (the compressor necessarily compresses the air flowing through it) flowing along the second air flowpath (Figure 3); and
a heat exchanger (Figure 5, lubrication system 278, which includes oil supply line 282 and 302 acts as a cooling system, i.e. heat exchanger for the electric machine, see paragraph 47) disposed within the second air flowpath (Figure 5 shows 302 in the second air flowpath 221), the heat exchanger being in thermal communication with at least one of the one or more electric machines (Figure 5 and paragraph 47), wherein the booster and the heat exchanger are disposed directly between the core cowl and the outer cowl (Figures 3 and 7 show this).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
747
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
486
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kupiszewski discloses wherein the fan and the booster are mechanically coupled (via LP shaft 224 and gearbox 234) with and driven by a first electric machine (246) of the one or more electric machines.
Regarding claim 4, Kupiszewski discloses wherein the at least one of the one or more electric machines that rotatably drives the fan is a first electric machine (246), and wherein the electric propulsor further comprises:
a gearbox (234); and
a shaft (Annotated figure 3, fan shaft and LP shaft 224) system having a first shaft (224) mechanically coupling the first electric machine and the gearbox and a second shaft (Annotated figure 3, fan shaft) mechanically coupling the gearbox and the fan (Figure 3 shows the fan shaft coupling fan 228 with gearbox 234).
Regarding claim 5, Kupiszewski discloses wherein the first shaft mechanically couples the first electric machine and the booster (Figure 3 shows first shaft 224 couples booster 210 and electric machine 246).
Regarding claim 7, Kupiszewski discloses wherein the core cowl defines a third air flowpath (Figure 5, 292 through 291) in flow communication with the second air flowpath downstream of the booster (All of Figure 5 is downstream of booster 210 in the tail of the engine), the third air flowpath being defined so as to allow air flow to the one or more electric machines (Figure 5 shows the airflow from 292 flows into buffer space 288 and paragraph 49 describes the buffer cavity 288 providing cooling to electric machine 246).
Regarding claim 8, Kupiszewski discloses wherein an outlet (291) of the third air flowpath is in flow communication with the second air flowpath (221) downstream of the heat exchanger (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Kupiszewski discloses wherein an outlet (Figure 5, 291) of the third air flowpath is defined at a tailcone (Annotated figure 3) of the core cowl (Annotated figures 3 and 7 show the outlet of the third air flowpath is in the tailcone of the core cowl).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupiszewski et al. (US 2018/0051702) in view of Kupratis et al. (US 2020/0392904).
Regarding claim 2, Kupiszewski discloses all the essential features of the claimed invention except wherein the fan and the booster are rotatably drivable by separate electric machines of the one or more electric machines.
Kupratis teaches wherein the fan and the booster are rotatably drivable by separate electric machines of the one or more electric machines (Figure 1 and paragraphs 55 and 45 describe electric machine 100 powering fan 28 and electric motor 54 powering booster 48).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupiszewski’s invention to include wherein the fan and the booster are rotatably drivable by separate electric machines of the one or more electric machines in order to improve engine efficiency as suggested and taught by Kupratis in paragraph 2.
Regarding claim 18, Kupiszewski discloses all the essential features of the claimed invention as described above except wherein the fan is positioned downstream of an outlet of the second air flowpath.
Kupratis teaches wherein the fan (Figure 1, 28) is positioned downstream of an outlet of the second air flowpath (outlet of second air flowpath 34 is just aft of low pressure turbine 96).
It has been held that merely rearranging parts of an invention (i.e. moving a fan from a forward position to an aft position) involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C).
Regarding claim 19, Kupiszewski discloses an electric propulsor (Figure 3), comprising:
a core cowl (Annotated figure 3);
an outer cowl (206), a first air flowpath (244) being defined outward of the outer cowl (Figure 3) and a second air flowpath (221) being defined between the core cowl and the outer cowl (Figure 3);
one or more electric machines (246);
a fan (226) having a plurality of fan blades (228), the fan being positioned upstream of an inlet of the second air flowpath or downstream of an outlet of the second air flowpath (Figure 3 shows the fan being upstream of the inlet 208 of the second air flowpath 221);
a booster (210) having a plurality of airfoils (axial compressors as shown in figure 3 necessarily comprise a plurality of airfoils) disposed at least in part in the second air flowpath (Figure 3), the fan and the booster being rotatably drivable by at least one of the one or more electric machines (paragraphs 33 and 37); and
a heat exchanger (Figure 5, lubrication system 278, which includes oil supply line 282 and 302 acts as a cooling system, i.e. heat exchanger for the electric machine, see paragraph 47) disposed within the second air flowpath (Figure 5 shows 302 in the second air flowpath 221) downstream of the booster (All of Figure 5 is downstream of booster 210 in the tail of the engine), the heat exchanger being in thermal communication with at least one of the one or more electric machines (Figure 5 and paragraph 47), wherein the booster and the heat exchanger are disposed directly between the core cowl and the outer cowl (Figures 3 and 7 show this).
Kupiszewski is silent on the one or more electric machines being a plurality of electric machines; the fan and the booster being rotatably drivable by separate electric machines of the plurality of electric machines.
Kupratis teaches the one or more electric machines being a plurality of electric machines (Figure 1, electric machines 100 and 54); the fan and the booster being rotatably drivable by separate electric machines of the plurality of electric machines (Figure 1 and paragraphs 55 and 45 describe electric machine 100 powering fan 28 and electric motor 54 powering booster 48).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupiszewski’s invention to include the one or more electric machines being a plurality of electric machines; the fan and the booster being rotatably drivable by separate electric machines of the plurality of electric machines in order to improve engine efficiency as suggested and taught by Kupratis in paragraph 2.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupiszewski et al. (US 2018/0051702) in view of Julien et al. (US 2017/0226959).
Regarding claim 6, Kupiszewski discloses all the essential features of the claimed invention as described above except wherein the heat exchanger is in thermal communication with the gearbox.
Julien teaches wherein the heat exchanger is in thermal communication with the gearbox (paragraph 43 describes heat exchanger 68 cools the gearbox 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupiszewski in view of Kupratis’s invention to include wherein the heat exchanger is in thermal communication with the gearbox in order to decrease weight compared to a multi-heat exchanger arrangement.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupiszewski et al. (US 2018/0051702) in view of Kupratis et al. (US 2020/0392904) and Julien et al. (US 2017/0226959).
Regarding claim 11, Kupiszewski discloses wherein the electric propulsor further comprises:
a gearbox (Figure 3, 234) mechanically coupling the first electric machine and the fan (fan 228 is connected to gearbox 234 through annotated fan shaft, and the gearbox is connected to the electric machine 246 through LP shaft 224); and
a cooling circuit (Figure 5, lubrication system 278, which includes oil supply line 282 and section 302 acts as a cooling system, i.e. heat exchanger for the electric machine, see paragraph 47) having one or more delivery lines (282) fluidly coupling the heat exchanger and the gearbox, the first electric machine, and the second electric machine, one or more return lines (284) fluidly coupling the first electric machine, and the second electric machine with the heat exchanger, and an oil pump (280 and 286) to move cooling fluid along the one or more delivery lines and the one or more return lines (Figure 5), and wherein the heat exchanger is in thermal communication the first electric machine, and the second electric machine via the cooling circuit (Figure 5).
Kupiszewski is silent on wherein the at least one of the one or more electric machines that rotatably drives the fan is a first electric machine and the at least one of the one or more electric machines that rotatably drives the booster is a second electric machine, and the one or more return lines fluidly coupling the gearbox; wherein the heat exchanger is in thermal communication with the gearbox.
Kupratis teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more electric machines that rotatably drives the fan is a first electric machine (Figure 1 and paragraph 55 describe electric machine 100 powering fan 28) and the at least one of the one or more electric machines that rotatably drives the booster is a second electric machine (Figure 1 and paragraph 45 describe electric motor 54 powering booster 48).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupiszewski’s invention to include wherein the at least one of the one or more electric machines that rotatably drives the fan is a first electric machine and the at least one of the one or more electric machines that rotatably drives the booster is a second electric machine in order to improve engine efficiency as suggested and taught by Kupratis in paragraph 2.
Kupiszewski in view of Kupratis is silent on the one or more return lines fluidly coupling the gearbox; wherein the heat exchanger is in thermal communication with the gearbox.
Julien teaches the one or more return lines fluidly coupling the gearbox (paragraph 43 describes the generator cooler 68, i.e. heat exchanger, cools the generator 64, i.e. electric machine, and the gearbox 28 via its respective inlet and outlet lines); wherein the heat exchanger is in thermal communication with the gearbox (paragraph 43 describes heat exchanger 68 cools the gearbox 28).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupiszewski in view of Kupratis’s invention to include the one or more return lines fluidly coupling the gearbox; wherein the heat exchanger is in thermal communication with the gearbox in order to decrease weight compared to a multi-heat exchanger arrangement.
Regarding claim 12, Kupiszewski in view of Kupratis and Julien teach the invention as claimed and described above. Kupiszewski further teaches wherein the oil pump is driven by the second electric machine (paragraph 45 describes the oil pumps 280 and 286 are powered by the second electric machine 246).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupiszewski et al. (US 2018/0051702) in view of Kupratis et al. (US 2020/0392904), Julien et al. (US 2017/0226959) and Bradley (US 2021/0010384).
Regarding claim 13, Kupiszewski in view of Kupratis and Julien teach all the essential features of the invention as claimed and described above except a third electric machine, wherein the oil pump is driven by the third electric machine.
Bradley teaches a third electric machine, wherein the oil pump is driven by the third electric machine (paragraph 35 describes 4 electric machines and paragraph 3 describes one of the electric machines driving an oil pump).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupiszewski in view of Kupratis’s invention to include a third electric machine, wherein the oil pump is driven by the third electric machine in order to provide a layout that is lighter, more compact and more efficient as suggested and taught by Bradley in paragraph 9.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupiszewski et al. (US 2018/0051702) in view of Niergarth et al. (US 2018/0050810).
Regarding claim 14, Kupiszewski discloses wherein the heat exchanger is a first heat exchanger (Figure 5, 282) positioned along a first cooling circuit (Figure 5, 278) positioned onboard the electric propulsor (Figure 5).
Kupiszewski is silent on and wherein the electric propulsor further comprises:
a second heat exchanger disposed within the second air flowpath, the second heat exchanger being in thermal communication with at least one offboard system through a second cooling circuit that is positioned at least in part offboard the electric propulsor.
Niergarth teaches a second heat exchanger (Figure 6 shows 2 heat exchangers 356a and 356b) disposed within an air flowpath (Figure 6, just outside of 12), the second heat exchanger being in thermal communication with at least one offboard system through a second cooling circuit (Figure 8, 364 through 396) that is positioned at least in part offboard the electric propulsor (Figure 8 shows the cooling circuit extends off the electric propulsor 300 to 102 and 104).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupiszewski’s invention to include a second heat exchanger disposed within the second air flowpath (in the system of Kupiszewski in view of Niergarth the two heat exchangers are within the second air flowpath), the second heat exchanger being in thermal communication with at least one offboard system through a second cooling circuit that is positioned at least in part offboard the electric propulsor in order to cool the transmission lines as suggested and taught by Niergarth in paragraph 66.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupiszewski et al. (US 2018/0051702) in view of Kupratis et al. (US 2020/0392904) and Bradley (US 2021/0010384).
Regarding claim 20, Kupiszewski discloses an electric propulsor (Figure 3), comprising:
a core cowl (Annotated figure 3);
an outer cowl (206), a first air flowpath (244) being defined outward of the outer cowl (Figure 3) and a second air flowpath (221) being defined between the core cowl and the outer cowl (Figure 3);
one or more electric machines (246);
a fan (226) having a plurality of fan blades (228);
a booster (210) having a plurality of airfoils (axial compressors as shown in figure 3 necessarily comprise a plurality of airfoils) disposed at least in part in the second air flowpath (Figure 3); and
a cooling circuit (Figure 5, lubrication system 278, which includes oil supply line 282 and 302 acts as a cooling system, i.e. heat exchanger for the electric machine, see paragraph 47) including a heat exchanger (302) and a pump (paragraph 44 describes a scavenge pump 286) for moving cooling fluid along one or more lines of the cooling circuit (284), the heat exchanger disposed at least in part in the second air flowpath (Figure 5 shows the heat exchanger 302 in the second airflow path 221), the cooling circuit provides thermal communication between the heat exchanger and at least one of the plurality of electric machines (Figure 5 and paragraph 47); and
wherein the fan, the booster, and the pump are rotatably drivable by at least one of the one or more electric machines (paragraphs 33, 37 and 45), and wherein the booster and the heat exchanger are disposed directly between the core cowl and the outer cowl (Figures 3 and 7 show this).
Kupiszewski is silent on the one or more electric machines being a plurality of electric machines; wherein the fan, the booster, and the pump are rotatably drivable by separate electric machines of the plurality of electric machines.
Kupratis teaches the one or more electric machines being a plurality of electric machines (Figure 1, electric machines 100 and 54); wherein the fan, the booster are being rotatably drivable by separate electric machines of the plurality of electric machines (Figure 1 and paragraphs 55 and 45 describe electric machine 100 powering fan 28 and electric motor 54 powering booster 48).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupiszewski’s invention to include the one or more electric machines being a plurality of electric machines; wherein the fan, the booster are being rotatably drivable by separate electric machines of the plurality of electric machines in order to improve engine efficiency as suggested and taught by Kupratis in paragraph 2.
Kupiszewski in view of Kupratis is silent on the pump is rotatably drivable by a separate electric machine.
Bradley teaches the pump is rotatably drivable by a separate electric machine (paragraph 35 describes 4 electric machines and paragraph 3 describes one of the electric machines driving an oil pump).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kupiszewski in view of Kupratis’s invention to include the pump is rotatably drivable by a separate electric machine in order to provide a layout that is lighter, more compact and more efficient as suggested and taught by Bradley in paragraph 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 15 and 17 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 and the claims are amended or a terminal disclaimer is filed to avoid the double patenting rejection.
Claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and the claims are amended or a terminal disclaimer is filed to avoid the double patenting rejection.
In addition to the art described above, Bradley (US 2021/0010384) teaches a system with a plurality of electric machines and Nikkanen et al. (US Patent 6,058,696) teaches a radius of entrance to a heat exchange path in comparison to the radius of the entrance to the flow path from which the heat exchange path is drawn off.
The prior art of record fails to anticipate and/or render obvious, either alone or in combination:
a metering valve positioned along the third air flowpath at or downstream of the one or more electric machines, the metering valve being controllable to modulate air flow exiting: i) an outlet of the third air flowpath defined in flow communication with the second air flowpath downstream of the heat exchanger; and ii) an outlet of the third air flowpath defined at a tailcone of the core cowl as described in claim 10;
wherein the outer cowl has a splitter nose and the core cowl defines a tangent point, the splitter nose and the tangent point define an inlet of the second air flowpath, a radial capture distance of the inlet being at least seventy-five percent less than an inlet distance spanning from the splitter nose to the tangent point, the radial capture distance being defined as a difference between a radial distance spanning between the splitter nose and a longitudinal centerline of the electric propulsor and a radial distance spanning between the tangent point and the longitudinal centerline as described in claim 15; or
wherein the heat exchanger is a first heat exchanger, and wherein the at least one of the one or more electric machines that rotatably drives the fan is a first electric machine and the at least one of the one or more electric machines that rotatably drives the booster is a second electric machine, and wherein the electric propulsor further comprises:
a third electric machine;
a fourth electric machine;
an oil pump driven by the third electric machine;
a fluid pump driven by the fourth electric machine;
a second heat exchanger disposed within the second air flowpath downstream of the booster;
a gearbox mechanically coupling the first electric machine with the fan;
a first cooling circuit providing thermal communication between the gearbox and the first heat exchanger; and
a second cooling circuit providing thermal communication between the second heat exchanger and the first electric machine, the second electric machine, the third electric machine, and a fourth electric machine as described in claim 17.
Claims dependent thereon inherit the allowable subject of the respective base claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741