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 .
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Claims 1-20 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.
In claim 1 line 2, there is no antecedent basis for “the lower base surface of the vehicle tire” and, as such, the scope of claim 1 is ambiguous. FOR EXAMPLE: It is unclear if the lower base surface is a lower surface of the tread or a lower surface of the inner liner. In claim 1 lines 2, it is suggested to change “the lower base surface of the vehicle tire” to --a lower base surface of the vehicle tire--.
In claim 1 line 10, it is unclear if the same walls or additional walls are being claimed. In claim 1, line 10, it is suggested to change “the top surface of first and second vertical boundary walls” to --of the top surface of the first and second vertical boundary walls--.
In claim 1, the description of “at least two of said indicator teeth marks sharing the same position on the groove bottom but indicating different tread depths for the tire tread based on the presence or absence of other indicator teeth marks on the groove pattern” (emphasis added) is unclear. If two teeth share the same position why are there two teeth instead of one tooth? In other words, the number of teeth being claimed is ambiguous. Since it appears that the above description requires fourth teeth (“the at least two of said indicator teeth marks” plus “other indicator teeth marks”) instead of three teeth marks, it is suggested to change “at least two of said indicator teeth marks sharing the same position on the groove bottom but indicating different tread depths for the tire tread based on the presence or absence of other indicator teeth marks on the groove pattern” to --at least two of said indicator teeth marks indicating different tread depths for the tire tread based on the presence or absence of other indicator teeth marks on the groove pattern--.
In claim 4, there is no antecedent basis for “the indicator cog perimeter” (lines 3, 6), “said indicator cog” (line 3), “the indicator cog” (lines 10, 13, 19, 20), “said tire tread depth indicator cog” (line 8), “said vertical interior wall material” (line 10) and “the tire tread material” (line 11) and, as such, the scope of claim 4 is ambiguous.
As to claim 4 and in order to clarify this claim and use consistent language, the following changes are suggested:
(1) on line 3, change “the indicator cog perimeter” to --a perimeter of the cog shaped indicator--,
(2) on line 6, change “the indicator cog perimeter” to --the perimeter of the cog shaped indicator--,
(3) on line 3, change “said indicator cog” to --the cog shaped indicator--.
(4) on each of line 10, 13, 19 and 20, change “the indicator cog” to --the cog shaped indicator--,
(5) on line 8, change “said tire tread depth indicator cog” to --the cog shaped indicator--,
(6) on line 10, change “said vertical interior wall material” to --material of the vertical interior walls--,
(7) on line 11, change “the tire tread material” to --material of the tire tread--.
In claim 5, there is no antecedent basis for “the indicator cog shape” (line 1), “the interior wall” (line 5, which wall?) and “the incrementally descending height inner walls” (line 6) and, as such, the scope of claim 5 is ambiguous.
As to claim 5, in order to clarify this claim and use consistent language, the following changes are suggested:
(1) on line 1, change “the indicator cog shape” to --the cog shaped indicator--;
(2) on line 5, change “the interior wall” to --the interior walls--;
(3) on line 7, change “inner walls” to --interior walls--.
In claim 6 line 4, there is no antecedent basis for “the indicator cog” and, and as such, the scope of claim 6 is ambiguous. In claim 6 line 4, it is suggested to change “the indicator cog” to --the cog shaped indicator--.
In claim 7 lines 2-3, there is no antecedent basis for “the indicator cog” (both occurrences) and, and as such, the scope of claim 7 is ambiguous. In claim 7, it is suggested to change “the indicator cog” (both occurrences) to --the cog shaped indicator--.
As to claim 8, it is unclear if “a full indicator cog” (claim 8 line 2) has the same scope as “a full cog shape” (claim 4 line 16). In claim 8 line 2, it is suggested to change “a full indicator cog” to --the full cog shape--.
In claim 8, there is no antecedent basis for “the indicator cog” (line 3) and, as such, the scope of claim 8 is ambiguous. In claim 8 line 3, it is suggested to change “the indicator cog” to --the cog shaped indicator--.
In claim 9 line 2, --,-- should be inserted after “determinative of a tire tread depth”.
In claim 9 line 3, there is no antecedent basis for “the 2 mm and 8 mm depths”. In claim 9 line 3, it is suggested to change “between the 2 mm and 8 mm depths” to
--between 2 mm and 8 mm depths--.
In claim 10 line 1, the description of “molding element for a tread depth indicator” is ambiguous. In claim 10 line 1, it is suggested to change “molding element for a tread depth indicator” to --molding element for molding a tread depth indicator-- in order to clarify the relationship between the molding element and the tread depth indicator.
In claim 10 line 4, there is no antecedent basis for “said indicator teeth” and, as such, the scope of claim 10 is ambiguous. In claim 10 line 3, it is suggested to change “a plurality of indicator teeth marks” to -- a plurality of indicator teeth--.
In claim 10 line 9, there is no antecedent basis for “the perimeter” [which perimeter?]. In claim 10 line 9, it is suggested to change “the perimeter” to
--a perimeter--.
Claim 10 line 10 ambiguously refers to “the indicator tooth”. Which indicator tooth? In claim 10 line 10, it is suggested to change “the indicator tooth” to --the tallest indicator tooth--.
In claim 11 line 3, there is no antecedent basis for “said indicator tooth forming members” and, as such, the scope of claim 11 is ambiguous. In claim 11 line 3, it is suggested to change “said indicator tooth forming members” to --the indicator teeth--.
In claim 11 line 5, the description of “when the tread depth indicator and tread depth indicator teeth are molded into a raised tread element” is ambiguous since the indicator teeth are part of the molding element instead of part of the tread. In claim 5 line 5, it suggested to change “when the tread depth indicator and tread depth indicator teeth are molded into a raised tread element” to --when the tread depth indicator is molded into a raised tread element--.
In claim 11 line 6, there is no antecedent basis for “the molded indicator teeth”. In claim 11 line 6, it is suggested to change “each of the molded indicator teeth” to
--each of molded indicator teeth--.
Claim 11 line 7 ambiguously refers to “the boundary wall”. Which boundary
wall? In claim 11 line 7, it is suggested to change “the boundary wall” to --the boundary walls--.
In claim 13, the relationship between the gradient gauge marks and the depth indicator teeth is ambiguous; this ambiguity making it unclear if the depth indicator teeth have incrementally increasing height. In claim 13, it is suggested to (1) on line 3, change “a plurality of gradient gauge marks” to --a plurality of depth indicator teeth-- and (2) on line 5, change “a plurality of depth indicator teeth” to --the plurality of depth indicator teeth--.
In claim 13 (directed to a molding element), the description regarding distributed at line 4 is ambiguous since it describes the distribution with respect to the tread depth indicator (product made by the molding element) instead of the molding element. In claim 13 line 4, it is suggested to change “the tread depth indicator” to --the tread depth indicator forming member--.
In claim 13 line 6, there is no antecedent basis for “the perimeter of the indicator cog” [which perimeter?] and, as such, the scope of claim 13 is ambiguous. In claim 13 line 6, it is suggested to change “the perimeter of the indicator cog” to --a perimeter of the cog shaped tread depth indicator--.
In claim 14, there is no antecedent basis for “the indicator cog” (line 2) and “the indicator cog molding element” and, as such, the scope of claim 14 is ambiguous. In claim 14, it is suggested to (1) on line 2, change “the indicator org” to --the cog shaped depth indicator-- and (2) on line 3, change “the indicator cog molding element” to
--the cog shaped depth indicator--.
In claim 15, there is no antecedent basis for “the wall segments of the indicator cog forming member” (line 1), “the indicator cog” (lines 2, 4), “depth indicator tooth forming member” (line 3), and “the raised tread elements surface” (line 5). Also, the description regarding “teeth” and “wall” in lines 5-7 of claim 15 is ambiguous since the literal meaning (and apparently unintended meaning) is that the teeth and wall of the molding element instead of the teeth and wall of the tread is being described. With respect to the literal meaning, the description in lines 5-7 of claim 15 is inconsistent with the description in lines 1-3 of claim 15; scope and meaning claim 15 thereby being unclear.
In claim 15, the following changes are suggested:
(1) on line 1, change “the wall segments of the indicator cog forming member” to
--wall segments of the cog shaped tread depth indicator--;
(2) on line 2, change “the indicator cog” to
--the cog shaped tread depth indicator--;
(2) on line 3, change “each depth indicator tooth forming member” to
--each depth indicator tooth--;
(3) on line 4, change “the indicator cog” to
--the cog shaped tread depth indicator--;
(4) on line 5, change “the raised tread elements surface” to
--the raised tread element--;
(5) on line 5 change “the indicator teeth” to
--molded teeth of the tread depth indicator--;
(6) on line 6, change “each segment of the wall” to
--each molded wall segment of the tread depth indicator--.
In claim 16, there is no antecedent basis for “the tread depth indicator forming members” (line 1), the tread pattern forming members” (line 2), “the tread pattern mold” (line 2) and “the molding elements” (line 3). Since claim 16 is directed to a molding element instead of a mold, the following amendment for claim 16 is suggested: change “the tread depth indicator forming members and the tread pattern forming members for the tread pattern mold are made by engraving, casting, or metal additive manufacturing of the molding elements” to --the tread depth indicator forming member is made by engraving, casting, or metal additive manufacturing--.
In claim 18, it is unclear why claim 18 describes “a tire tread mold” (line 3) and “a tread pattern mold” (line 5). How many mold(s) are being claimed? In claim 18, the following changes are suggested: (1) on line 3, change “a tire tread mold” to --a tire tread pattern mold-- and (2) on line 5, change “a tread pattern mold” to --the tread pattern mold--.
In claim 18, the relationship between the gradient gauge marks and the depth indicator teeth is ambiguous; this ambiguity making it unclear if the depth indicator teeth have incrementally increasing height. In claim 18 line 9, it is suggested to change “a plurality of gradient gauge marks” to --a plurality of depth indicator teeth--.
In claim 18, there is no antecedent basis for “said tread depth indicator forming members” (line 7, in light of “one or more”, number of these members being claimed thereby being unclear), “the tread pattern of grooves and raised tread blocks” (line 20) and “the cog” (line 24). Also, the description regarding distributed at line 9 is ambiguous since it describes the distribution with respect to the tread depth indicator (product made by the forming member) instead of the forming member. Also, the number of marks/teeth being claimed is unclear since claim 18 describes “a plurality of gradient gauge marks” (line 9) and “one or more indicator teeth” (line 24).
In claim 18, the following changes are suggested:
(1) on line 7, change “said tread depth indicator forming members” to --the tread depth indicator forming member--;
(2) on line 9, change “the tread depth indicator” to --the tread depth indicator forming member--;
(3) on line 20, change “the tread pattern of grooves and raised tread blocks” to
--a tread pattern of grooves and raised tread blocks--;
(4) on line 24, change “a cog shape having one of more indicator teeth” to
--a cog shape having molded indicator teeth--; and
(5) on line 24, change “around the cog,” to --around the cog shape--.
In claim 19, there is no strict antecedent basis for “the indicator cog shape” (both occurrences). In claim 19, it is suggested to change “the indicator cog shape” to --the cog shape--.
In claim 20 (dependent on claim 18), it is unclear if the description of “when” (line 4) removes the limitations regarding molding in claim 18. Furthermore, there is no antecedent basis for “said indicator cog forming member wall segments” (line 1); “the cog” (line 2), “depth indicator forming member” (line 3) and “the indicator cog” (line 4).
Also, the description regarding “teeth” and “wall” in lines 5-7 of claim 20 is ambiguous since the literal meaning (and apparently unintended meaning) is that the teeth and wall of the tread depth indicator forming member instead of the teeth and wall of the tread is being described. With respect to the literal meaning, the description in lines 5-7 of claim 20 is inconsistent with the description in lines 1-3 of claim 20; scope and meaning claim 20 thereby being unclear.
In claim 20, the following changes are suggested:
(1) on line 1, change “said indicator cog forming member wall segments” to --wall segments of the tread depth indicator forming member--;
(2) on line 2, change “the cog” to --the tread depth indicator forming member--;
(3) on line 3 change ”each depth indicator tooth forming member increases” to
--each depth indicator tooth increases--;
(4) on line 4, change “the indicator cog” to --the tread depth indicator forming member--;
(5) on line 4 delete --when--;
(6) on line 5, change “each of the depth indicator teeth increases” to
--each of molded depth indicator teeth increases--;
(7) on line 6, change “each cog segment of the wall” to--each molded wall segment--.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) Claims 1, 3, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kemp et al (US 2006/0213594).
Kemp et al discloses a tire for vehicle tire having a tread comprising a central rib 50, middle block rows and shoulder block rows separated by circumferential grooves wherein each block row comprises blocks 60 separated by lateral grooves [FIGURE 1-2, paragraphs 42, 45-46]. Kemp et al teaches providing a wear indicator 40 in a block of the tread [FIGURES 1-2, paragraphs 45-46]. The wear indicator may be an annular groove having a groove pattern being the shape of a ring sector as shown in FIGURE 10. Annotated copies of FIGURE 10 of Kemp et al is provided below:
PNG
media_image1.png
855
841
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The markings in the above MARKED UP COPIES were added by examiner to facilitate discussion of Kemp et al. With respect to MARKED UP COPIES #1, #2 and #3, T1 is a first tooth, T2 is a second tooth, T3 is a third tooth, T4 is a fourth tooth, T5 is a fifth tooth, T6 is a sixth tooth, T7 is a seventh tooth, T8 is an eighth tooth and W1 is a first vertical wall, W2 is a second vertical wall. As can be seen from FIGURE 10, equally distributed teeth and wall segments of the wear indicator disappear in a counter clockwise manner as the tire tread wears. Therefore, the teeth of the wear indicator have different depths, wall segments of the wear indicator have incremental depth and they disappear in a counter clockwise manner with tread wear so as to visually indicate amount of tread wear. As can also be seen from FIGURE 10, teeth T1 and T6 indicate different tread depths for the tire tread based on the presence or absence of other indicator teeth marks on the groove pattern.
Claim 1 is anticipated by Kemp et al. The claimed vehicle tire reads on Kemp et al’s vehicle tire having the FIGURE 10 wear indicator. The claimed vertical walls read on vertical walls W1, W2. The claimed teeth marks read on at least two (or at least four) of teeth T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8.
Claim 3 reads on Kemp et al’s FIGURE 10 wear indicator and fails to require teeth marks having depths different than that disclosed by Kemp et al for FIGURE 10.
As to claims 10 and 13 (molding element), Kemp et al teaches forming the wear indicator using a correspondingly shaped molding element [paragraphs 19-20, 33, 50, 53, 55].
7) Claims 1-7, 10-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp et al (US 2006/0213594) in view of China 376 (CN 204586376).
Kemp et al is considered to anticipate claim 1. IN ANY EVENT: Kemp et al shows teeth disappearing in a counter clockwise manner [FIGURE 10] instead of a clockwise manner, Kemp et al shows eight teeth [FIGURE 10] instead of six teeth, and Kemp et al is silent as to depth in millimeters of each of the teeth.
China 376 discloses a vehicle tire (passenger or truck) having a tread comprising a wear indicator in the form of a groove comprising a center hexagon shaped groove portion and six equally distributed groove shaped petals (“teeth”) [FIGURES 1-2] wherein the first petal (“first tooth”) has a depth = 1 mm, the second petal (“second tooth”) has a depth = 2 mm, the third petal (“third tooth”) has a depth = 3 mm, the fourth petal (“fourth tooth”) has a depth = 4 mm, the fifth petal (“fifth tooth”) has a depth = 5 mm and sixth petal (“sixth tooth”) has a depth > 6 mm (depth branch parts = 6 mm, depth rectangular part > 6 mm) [machine translation]. FIGURE 1 of China 376 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
120
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to the tire tread wears, the petals disappear in a clockwise manner to visually indicate amount of tread wear wherein one petal (“one tooth”) tooth has a first depth when all of the petals (“teeth”) are present on the tread surface and the one petal (“the one tooth”) has a second depth when only the one petal (“one tooth”) is present on the tread surface [FIGURE 1]..
As to claims 1-7, 10-11 and 13-16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kemp et al’s vehicle tire such that the FIGURE 10 wear indicator has six teeth wherein (i) as the tire tread wears, the teeth disappear in a clockwise fashion, (ii) the teeth have different depths increasing by 1 mm from shortest tooth to largest tooth and (iii) a first tooth has a first depth when all indicator teeth are present and the first tooth has a second depth when only the first tooth is present on the tread surface since (1) both Kemp et al and China 376 teach a vehicle tire having a tread comprising a wear indicator in the form of a groove having equally distributed teeth wherein the teeth disappear as the tread wears and (2) China 376 teaches providing such a wear indicator such that the wear indicator has six teeth wherein (i) as the tire tread wears, the teeth disappear in a clockwise fashion, (ii) the teeth have different depths increasing by 1 mm from shortest tooth to largest tooth and (iii) a first tooth has a first depth when all indicator teeth are present and the first tooth has a second depth when only the first tooth is present on the tread surface [FIGURE 1, machine translation].
As to claims 1, 4 (vertical walls), Kemp et al teaches that the wear indicator comprises an annular groove (“half of a full cylindrical shell”) having first and second cylindrical walls W1, W2 wherein wall segments of the vertical walls have different depths corresponding to the depths of the teeth so that wall segments and teeth of the wear indicator disappear as the tread wears [FIGURE 10, MARKED UP FIGURES #1, #2, #3].
As to claim 4 (raised tread elements), Kemp et al providing the tire such that the tread comprises blocks (raised tread elements) and forming a wear indicator in a block of the tread [FIGURE 1-2] wherein the wear indicator may have the FIGURE 10 configuration.
As to claim 4 (substantially the same material), Kemp et al teaches forming the wear indicator in the tread surface 30; the walls of the FIGURE 10 wear indicator thereby being made of the same tread material forming the tread surface 30.
As to claim 4 (full cog shape / first cog position), Kemp et al’s wear indicator has a full cog shape when the tire has 0% wear [FIGURE 10] AND comprises a first tooth T1 in a “first cog position” [FIGURE 10, MARKED UP FIGURES #1, #2, #3].
As to claim 4 (molded into), Kemp et al teaches forming the wear indicator using a molding element; which one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand is a “solid molding element”..
As to claims 10 and 13 (molding element), Kemp et al teaches forming the wear indicator using a correspondingly shaped molding element [paragraphs 19-20, 33, 50, 53, 55].
As to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Kemp et al’s molding element for molding groove pattern wear indicator in a tire tread by casting since official notice is taken that it is well known / conventional per se in the tire art to make a molding element (e.g. blade for a sipe) for a tire mold by casting.
8) Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp et al (US 2006/0213594) in view of China 376 (CN 204586376) as applied above and further in view of Iwasaki (US 2016/0089938) and Eromaki et al (US 6,523,586).
As to claims 8 and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Kemp et al’s tire having the groove pattern FIGURE 10 wear indicator such that said first depth indicator tooth has a first depth of 8 mm when a full indicator cog is visible on the tire tread surface of an unworn tire and a second depth of 2 mm when only said first depth indicator tooth of the indicator cog is visible on the tire tread surface after the raised tread element has substantially worn away [claim 8], each of said subsequent depth indicator teeth have a specified depth determinative of a tire tread depth said specified depth of said subsequent depth indicator teeth being between the 2 mm and 8 mm depths of said first depth indicator tooth [claim 9] since (1) China 376 teaches forming a groove pattern wear indicator for a tire tread having petals (teeth) such that the depth of the next to last petal (next to last tooth) to wear away is 5 mm and the depth of the last petal (tooth) visible after all the other petals have worn away is greater than 6 mm [machine translation], (2) Iwasaki teaches providing a passenger tire having a tread comprising circumferential grooves and blocks such that the depth of the circumferential grooves is 7.5 to 10 mm to obtain suitable water and snow discharge capability [FIGURE 1, 2A, 2B, paragraph 25] and (3) Eromaki teaches providing a vehicle tire having a tread comprising grooves and a groove pattern wear indicator such that the depth of the deepest groove pattern wear indicator is either (a) equal to the depth of the groove of the tread or (b) equal to 1 to 2 mm less than the depth of the groove of the tread [FIGURES 1-3, col. 2 lines 46-50]. Thus, the optimum circumferential groove depth, number of teeth for the groove pattern wear indicator and depths of the teeth of the groove pattern indicator would have been obvious and could have been determined without undue experimentation.
9) Claims 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemp et al (US 2006/0213594) in view of China 376 (CN 204586376) as applied above and further in view of Galli et al (US 5,234,326).
As to claims 12, 17 and 18, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form Kemp et al’s tire using tire a mold / tire curing and vulcanization apparatus as set forth in claims 12, 17 and 18 since (1) Kemp et al teaches forming tire having a tread comprising blocks including a groove pattern wear indicator in a block using a molding element fixed in a mold for the tire wherein the molding element has a configuration corresponding to the groove pattern wear indicator, (2) Galli et al teaches forming a tire having a tread comprising blocks by applying heat and pressure to a raw carcass (uncured tire) using tire curing and vulcanization apparatus comprising a tread pattern mold comprising raised block molding sectors [FIGURES 2-7] and (3) with respect to claim 18, official notice is taken that it well known / conventional per se in the tire art to assemble tire components (e.g. tread and carcass) to form an uncured tire assembly and then to cure the uncured tire assembly using heat and pressure.
As to claims 19 and 20 , see comments for claims 14 and 15.
Remarks
10) US 6,423,586 (Yamazaki et al), cited by applicant in the IDS filed 5-21-25, is directed to a method for crystallizing semiconductor material without exposing it to air instead of a tire and, accordingly, is not relevant to this application.
The remaining references are of interest.
11) No claim is allowed.
12) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Katelyn B Smith (Whatley) can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights