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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “transition cone 28” is not shown in the drawing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Numerals 44 and 45 in the drawing are not describe din the originally-filed specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 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.
In claim 5, the mathematical expression does not have clear and proper antecedent basis in the claims (it appears that claim 5 should depend from either claim 3 or claim 4, not claim 2). Furthermore, the last part of the mathematical expression (i.e. “*GF”) is missing in claim 5.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0069655 A1) in combination with Gneuss et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0243744 A1), Hamatani et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,056,901 A) and Capelle et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,127,741 A).
Regarding claim 1, Clark (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0017], [0029], [0030], [0033], [0036] and [0056]; Figures 2-4) teaches an apparatus (see Figures 2 and 3, paragraphs [0029] (multiple rotating screw (MRS) extruder) and [0017] (washing polymer flakes) of Clark), including (a) an MRS extruder with a housing having an inner housing recess that extends at least between an inlet opening and an outlet opening, and having at least one degassing zone and an extruder screw, with at least one helical extruder screw flight that is rotatable in the housing recess (see Figure 2 and paragraph [0029] (MRS extruder) of Clark), the extruder screw being divided into: (a)(1) an inlet screw section into which the inlet opening leads (see Figure 2, paragraph [0030] (first section 410) of Clark; (a)(2) a multi-screw section in which multiple satellite screws rotate together with a main screw and additionally rotate about their own axis, a diameter of the multi-screw section being larger than a screw diameter of the inlet screw section (see Figures 2 and 3, paragraphs [0030] (MRS section 420) and [0033] (satellite screws 425A-425H) of Clark; the diameter of the MRS section 420 being larger than the diameter of the first section 410 or the second section 440); (a)(3) a transition cone that is formed between the inlet screw section and the multi-screw section (see Figure 2 (transition area (or portion) between the first section 410 and the MRS section 420, and the transition area (or portion) between the second section 440 and the MRS section 440) of Clark); (a)(4) an outlet screw section that has a smaller diameter than the multi-screw section (see Figure 2, paragraph [0030] (second section 440) of Clark; and (b’) a cutting device (see paragraph [0056] (crystallizing flakes in a crystallizer prior to running flakes through an extruder; the crystallizer includes a housing, a hopper screw (e.g., an auger, a cutting device) within the housing, a stirrer, one or more heating elements and one or more blowers) of Clark), wherein (b)(2) the multi-screw section contains four to eight satellite screws whose length in each case is at least four times its diameter (see Figure 3, paragraph [0033] (satellite screws 425A-425H) of Clark). Clark does not teach (b) a cutter compactor, or (b)(1) wherein a diameter-to-length ratio of the inlet screw section is less than 1:22. Gneuss et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0009], [0012], [0063] and [0065]) teaches an apparatus (see paragraph [0001] (extrusion system) of Gneuss et al), including a cutter compactor (see paragraphs [0065] (the extruder can be an MRS extruder) and [0063] (the extrusion system includes further assemblies, such as cutter compactors) of Gneuss et al). Hamatani et al (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 8-10; col. 2, lines 30-39; col. 3, lines 28-30; col. 5, lines 26-61; Figure 1) teaches an apparatus (see Figure 1; col. 3, lines 28-30 (device for preparing pellets) of Hamatani et al), including a cutter compactor (see Figure 1; col. 5, lines 26-61 (cutter compactor 13 provided with rotary blades 14; heated to an elevated temperature about 20°C lower than the melting point of the resin; heating results in the removal of water (i.e., PET has a melting point of about 250°C, a temperature 20°C below is 230°C, which is higher than the boiling point of water); granulated resin is supplied to extruder 20 via a discharge outlet 12) of Hamatani et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cutter compactor in the apparatus of Clark in view of Gneuss et al and Hamatani et al in order to produce molded parts from waste plastics (see paragraph [0012] of Gneuss et al) and reuse waste synthetic resin materials to manufacture regenerated synthetic resin products possessing good quality (see col. 2, lines 30-39 of Hamatani et al). Capelle et al (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 6-8 and 59-63; col. 2, lines 63-68) teaches an apparatus (see col. 1, lines 6-8 (extruder for processing thermoplastic material) of Capelle et al), wherein a diameter-to-length ratio of the inlet screw section is less than 1:22 (see col. 2, lines 63-68 (feed section length of 3D) of Capelle et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a diameter-to-length ratio of the inlet screw section is less than 1:22 in the apparatus of Clark in view of Capelle et al in order to provide an extruder having improved mixing and homogenizing characteristics (see col. 1, lines 59-63 of Capelle et al).
Regarding claim 2, see col. 2, lines 63-68 (feed section length of 3D) of Capelle et al.
Regarding claim 6, see Figures 3 and 4, paragraph [0036] (MRS section 420 is fitted with vacuum pump 430 that is attached to vacuum treatment portion 422 of MRS section 420) of Clark.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0069655 A1) in combination with Gneuss et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0243744 A1), Hamatani et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,056,901 A) and Capelle et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,127,741 A) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 6 above, and further in view of Hackl et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0087641 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Clark (in combination with Gneuss et al, Hamatani et al and Capelle et al) does not teach (1) a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit. Hackl et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001] and [0074]) teaches an apparatus (see paragraph [0001] (device for processing thermoplastic material) of Hackl et al), including a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit (see Figure 1, paragraph [0074] (cutter compactor 1 is evacuated with a vacuum pump; cutter compactor is connected to extruder 4) of Hackl et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit in the apparatus of Clark (in combination with Gneuss et al, Hamatani et al and Capelle et al) in view of Hackl et al in order to remove moisture and volatiles from thermoplastic flakes.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0069655 A1) in combination with Gneuss et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0243744 A1) and Hamatani et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,056,901 A).
Regarding claim 8, Clark (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0003], [0005], [0028], [0033], [0036], [0038], [0056] and [0061]; Figures 3 and 4) teaches a process (see paragraph [0003] (method of manufacturing filaments using an extruder) of Clark), including (a) feeding washed polymer particles into a cutting device (see paragraphs [0005] (washing polymer flakes) and [0056] (crystallizing flakes in a crystallizer prior to running flakes through an extruder) of Clark); (b) heating the quantity of polymer particles in the cutting device to a temperature that is higher than a boiling point of water at an internal pressure prevailing in the cutting device and is lower than the melting point of the polymer, the polymer particles being comminuted and intermixed by at least one blade that rotates in the cutting device (see paragraphs [0056] (the crystallizer includes a housing, a hooper screw (e.g., an auger, a cutting device) within the housing, a stirrer, one or more heating elements and one or more blowers) and [0061] (the temperature in the crystallizer is about 100-180°C) of Clark); (c) transferring the quantity of polymer particles into the inlet screw section of an MRS extruder (see paragraph [0056] (crystallizing flakes in a crystallizer prior to running flakes through an extruder (i.e., once crystallized, the flakes are transferred to MRS extruder 400)) of Clark); (d) further leading the polymer to be plasticized to form a thermoplastic melt into a multi-screw section (see paragraph [0033] (polymer is fed into MRS section 420) of Clark); (e) evacuating volatile foreign substances from the melt in a degassing zone (see Figures 3 and 4, paragraph [0036] (MRS section 420 is fitted with a vacuum pump 430) of Clark(; and (f) discharging the degassed melt via an outlet screw section (see Figure 4, paragraph [0038] (polymer stream flows out of second section 440 to filtration system 450) of Clark). Clark does not teach (1) a cutter compactor. Gneuss et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001], [0009], [0012], [0063] and [0065]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0009] (process solid materials (including wastes) with an extruder) of Gneuss et al), including a cutter compactor (see paragraphs [0065] (the extruder can be an MRS extruder) and [0063] (the extrusion system includes further assemblies, such as cutter compactors) of Gneuss et al). Hamatani et al (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 8-10; col. 2, lines 30-39; col. 3, lines 28-30; col. 5, lines 26-61; Figure 1) teaches a process (col. 1, lines 8-10 (method for the manufacture of synthetic resin products) of Hamatani et al), including a cutter compactor (see Figure 1; col. 5, lines 26-61 (cutter compactor 13 provided with rotary blades 14; heated to an elevated temperature about 20°C lower than the melting point of the resin; heating results in the removal of water (i.e., PET has a melting point of about 250°C, a temperature 20°C below is 230°C, which is higher than the boiling point of water); granulated resin is supplied to extruder 20 via a discharge outlet 12) of Hamatani et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cutter compactor in the processs of Clark in view of Gneuss et al and Hamatani et al in order to produce molded parts from waste plastics (see paragraph [0012] of Gneuss et al) and reuse waste synthetic resin materials to manufacture regenerated synthetic resin products possessing good quality (see col. 2, lines 30-39 of Hamatani et al).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, see paragraph [0036] (pressure in MRS section 420 is less than about 1.5 millibars; pressure in the crystallizer would have been obvious to, and readily determined by one of ordinary skill in the art) of Clark.
Regarding claim 12, see paragraphs [0028] (flakes are preconditioned (e.g., in crystallizer) for about 20-40 minutes) and [0061] (the temperature in the crystallizer is about 100-180°C) of Clark.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0069655 A1) in combination with Gneuss et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0243744 A1) and Hamatani et al (U.S. Patent No. 6,056,901 A) as applied to claims 8 and 10-12 above, and further in view of Hackl et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0087641 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Clark (in combination with Gneuss et al and Hamatani et al) does not teach (1) a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit. Hackl et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001] and [0074]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (method of processing thermoplastic material) of Hackl et al), including a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit (see Figure 1, paragraph [0074] (cutter compactor 1 is evacuated with a vacuum pump; cutter compactor is connected to extruder 4) of Hackl et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit in the process of Clark (in combination with Gneuss et al, Hamatani et al) in view of Hackl et al in order to remove moisture and volatiles from thermoplastic flakes.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0069655 A1) in combination with Connolly (U.S. Patent No. 3,455,515 A) and Capelle et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,127,741 A).
Regarding claim 1, Clark (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0017], [0029], [0030], [0033], [0036] and [0056]; Figures 2-4) teaches an apparatus (see Figures 2 and 3, paragraphs [0029] (multiple rotating screw (MRS) extruder) and [0017] (washing polymer flakes) of Clark), including (a) an MRS extruder with a housing having an inner housing recess that extends at least between an inlet opening and an outlet opening, and having at least one degassing zone and an extruder screw, with at least one helical extruder screw flight that is rotatable in the housing recess (see Figure 2 and paragraph [0029] (MRS extruder) of Clark), the extruder screw being divided into: (a)(1) an inlet screw section into which the inlet opening leads (see Figure 2, paragraph [0030] (first section 410) of Clark; (a)(2) a multi-screw section in which multiple satellite screws rotate together with a main screw and additionally rotate about their own axis, a diameter of the multi-screw section being larger than a screw diameter of the inlet screw section (see Figures 2 and 3, paragraphs [0030] (MRS section 420) and [0033] (satellite screws 425A-425H) of Clark; the diameter of the MRS section 420 being larger than the diameter of the first section 410 or the second section 440); (a)(3) a transition cone that is formed between the inlet screw section and the multi-screw section (see Figure 2 (transition area (or portion) between the first section 410 and the MRS section 420, and the transition area (or portion) between the second section 440 and the MRS section 440) of Clark); (a)(4) an outlet screw section that has a smaller diameter than the multi-screw section (see Figure 2, paragraph [0030] (second section 440) of Clark; and (b’) a cutting device (see paragraph [0056] (crystallizing flakes in a crystallizer prior to running flakes through an extruder; the crystallizer includes a housing, a hopper screw (e.g., an auger, a cutting device) within the housing, a stirrer, one or more heating elements and one or more blowers) of Clark), wherein (b)(2) the multi-screw section contains four to eight satellite screws whose length in each case is at least four times its diameter (see Figure 3, paragraph [0033] (satellite screws 425A-425H) of Clark). Clark does not teach (b) a cutter compactor, or (b)(1) wherein a diameter-to-length ratio of the inlet screw section is less than 1:22. Connolly (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 23-32; col. 7, lines 52-53; Figure 10) teaches an apparatus (see col. 1, lines 23-32 (apparatus for rapid disintegration of fillers) of Connolly), including a cutter compactor (see Figure 10; col. 7, lines 52-53 (auger 57 (i.e., a cutting device) assists in the further comminution of disintegrated filler particles 25’) of Connolly), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cutter compactor in the apparatus of Clark in view of Connolly in order to provide further comminution of disintegrated filler particles (see col. 7, lines 52-53 of Connolly). Capelle et al (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 6-8 and 59-63; col. 2, lines 63-68) teaches an apparatus (see col. 1, lines 6-8 (extruder for processing thermoplastic material) of Capelle et al), wherein a diameter-to-length ratio of the inlet screw section is less than 1:22 (see col. 2, lines 63-68 (feed section length of 3D) of Capelle et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a diameter-to-length ratio of the inlet screw section is less than 1:22 in the apparatus of Clark in view of Capelle et al in order to provide an extruder having improved mixing and homogenizing characteristics (see col. 1, lines 59-63 of Capelle et al).
Regarding claim 2, see col. 2, lines 63-68 (feed section length of 3D) of Capelle et al.
Regarding claim 6, see Figures 3 and 4, paragraph [0036] (MRS section 420 is fitted with vacuum pump 430 that is attached to vacuum treatment portion 422 of MRS section 420) of Clark.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0069655 A1) in combination with Connolly (U.S. Patent No. 3,455,515 A) and Capelle et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,127,741 A) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 6 above, and further in view of Hackl et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0087641 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Clark (in combination with Connoly and Capelle et al) does not teach (1) a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit. Hackl et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001] and [0074]) teaches an apparatus (see paragraph [0001] (device for processing thermoplastic material) of Hackl et al), including a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit (see Figure 1, paragraph [0074] (cutter compactor 1 is evacuated with a vacuum pump; cutter compactor is connected to extruder 4) of Hackl et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit in the apparatus of Clark (in combination with Connolly and Capelle et al) in view of Hackl et al in order to remove moisture and volatiles from thermoplastic flakes.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0069655 A1) in combination with Connolly (U.S. Patent No. 3,455,515 A).
Regarding claim 8, Clark (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0003], [0005], [0028], [0033], [0036], [0038], [0056] and [0061]; Figures 3 and 4) teaches a process (see paragraph [0003] (method of manufacturing filaments using an extruder) of Clark), including (a) feeding washed polymer particles into a cutting device (see paragraphs [0005] (washing polymer flakes) and [0056] (crystallizing flakes in a crystallizer prior to running flakes through an extruder) of Clark); (b) heating the quantity of polymer particles in the cutting device to a temperature that is higher than a boiling point of water at an internal pressure prevailing in the cutting device and is lower than the melting point of the polymer, the polymer particles being comminuted and intermixed by at least one blade that rotates in the cutting device (see paragraphs [0056] (the crystallizer includes a housing, a hooper screw (e.g., an auger, a cutting device) within the housing, a stirrer, one or more heating elements and one or more blowers) and [0061] (the temperature in the crystallizer is about 100-180°C) of Clark); (c) transferring the quantity of polymer particles into the inlet screw section of an MRS extruder (see paragraph [0056] (crystallizing flakes in a crystallizer prior to running flakes through an extruder (i.e., once crystallized, the flakes are transferred to MRS extruder 400)) of Clark); (d) further leading the polymer to be plasticized to form a thermoplastic melt into a multi-screw section (see paragraph [0033] (polymer is fed into MRS section 420) of Clark); (e) evacuating volatile foreign substances from the melt in a degassing zone (see Figures 3 and 4, paragraph [0036] (MRS section 420 is fitted with a vacuum pump 430) of Clark(; and (f) discharging the degassed melt via an outlet screw section (see Figure 4, paragraph [0038] (polymer stream flows out of second section 440 to filtration system 450) of Clark). Clark does not teach (1) a cutter compactor. Connolly (see the entire document, in particular, col. 1, lines 23-32; col. 7, lines 52-53; Figure 10) teaches a process (see col. 1, lines 23-32 (process of rapid disintegration of fillers) of Connolly), including a cutter compactor (see Figure 10; col. 7, lines 52-53 (auger 57 (i.e., a cutting device) assists in the further comminution of disintegrated filler particles 25’) of Connolly), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cutter compactor in the process of Clark in view of Connolly in order to provide further comminution of disintegrated filler particles (see col. 7, lines 52-53 of Connolly).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0069655 A1) in combination with Connolly (U.S. Patent No. 3,455,515 A) as applied to claims 8 and 10-12 above, and further in view of Hackl et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0087641 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Clark (in combination with Connolly) does not teach (1) a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit. Hackl et al (see the entire document, in particular, paragraphs [0001] and [0074]) teaches a process (see paragraph [0001] (method of processing thermoplastic material) of Hackl et al), including a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit (see Figure 1, paragraph [0074] (cutter compactor 1 is evacuated with a vacuum pump; cutter compactor is connected to extruder 4) of Hackl et al), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a cutter compactor connected to a suction unit in the process of Clark (in combination with Connolly) in view of Hackl et al in order to remove moisture and volatiles from thermoplastic flakes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Claim 5 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEO B. TENTONI whose telephone number is (571)272-1209. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 ET M-F.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
LEO B. TENTONI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1742
/LEO B TENTONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights