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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-11, drawn to a “Device” or to a “Set”, depending upon the claim) and of Species i (a first species in which the contact element (31) of the device (10) comprises a permanent magnet (32) as shown in at least Figures 1-5) in the reply filed on 3/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2 and 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/13/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of the claim, “Device” should be changed “A device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3-9 are objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of each the claims, “Device” should be changed “The device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of the claim, “Set” should be changed “A set”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 6 of the claim, “a clamping ram” should be changed “[[a]] the clamping ram”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 7 of the claim, “arranged” should be inserted before “parallel to the…” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of the claim, “Set” should be changed “The set”. 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.
Claims 1 and 3-11 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.
Lines 1-3 of claim 1 state, “Device (10) for handling a clamping ram (100) which has a shaft (110) with a longitudinal axis (L) and a collar (112), with an arm (20) that can be moved in at least one spatial direction (X).” This limitation is viewed to be vague an indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear if “an arm (20)” is an element of the device (10), or is instead an element of the clamping ram (100), or is instead an element of the collar (112).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the front side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the ejector pin" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the spring force" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) (“by means of a pneumatic unit”) following the phrase (“preferably”) are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the alignment tip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ejector pin" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Lines 2-3 of claim 9 state, “one spatial direction (X).” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “one spatial direction (X)” of claim 9 is one of the “at least one spatial direction (X)” of claim 1 (noting that claim 9 depends upon claim 1), or if instead the “one spatial direction (X)” of claim 9 is provided in addition to, for example, the “at least one spatial direction (X)” of claim 1.
Line 3 of claim 9 states, “the longitudinal axis (L) of one clamping ram (100).” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, as it is unclear if “the longitudinal axis (L)” of claim 9 is the same longitudinal axis (X) or is a different longitudinal axis (X) as the longitudinal axis (X) of the shaft (110) of the clamping ram (100) of claim 1.
Line 3 of claim 9 states, “one clamping ram (100).” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because it is unclear if the “one clamping ram (100)” of claim 9 is the clamping ram (100) or is a different clamping ram (100) as the clamping ram (100) of claim 1.
Lines 1-3 of claim 10 state, “Set comprising a machine tool (200) with at least one spindle, an axis of rotation or an indexing head (210), on which a tool or workpiece holder (220) is arranged.” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as claimed, it is unclear if the machine tool (200) of the set is being set forth as claiming at least one spindle and one of an axis of rotation or an indexing head, or if instead, the machine tool (200) of the set is being set forth as claiming one of at least one spindle, an axis of rotation, and an indexing head.
Lines 5-6 of claim 10 state, “a rotational axis (D) of the spindle, of the axis of rotation or of the indexing head (210) is arranged parallel to the longitudinal axis of a clamping ram (100).” This limitation is viewed to be vague and indefinite, because as written in claim 10, it is unclear if the “rotational axis” is being set forth only with respect to the spindle, or if instead the “rotational axis” is being set forth as being an element of the spindle, or of the axis of rotation, or of the indexing head (210). If it is the latter, for example, how or in what way does the “axis of rotation” have “a rotational axis (D)”? What would be the difference, for example, between the “axis of rotation” and the “rotational axis (D)”?
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, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schomers (Germany Publication No. DE 102008006447 A1).
Please be advised that an EPO Machine Translation of Schomers is relied upon below.
Claim 1: As can be seen below in annotated Figure 1, Schomers discloses a device (11) for handling a clamping ram (10) which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar. Please note that the clamping ram (10) constitutes such, since it (10) is an element that is clamped and locked to a mold tool [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0030].
PNG
media_image1.png
483
773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Next, as can be seen above in annotated Figure 1 of Schomers, the device (11) is provided with an arm that can be moved in at least one spatial direction. Please be advised that when comparing Figure 1 to Figure 6, for example, movement of the arm in the at least one spatial direction can be seen. As can also be seen above in annotated Figure 1, at a first end (distal end) of the arm is arranged a fastening unit (12) for fastening the clamping ram (10).
According to Schomers, the fastening unit (12) is itself a magnet element [EPO Machine Translation, paragraphs 0029-0030]. As such, the fastening unit (12) in and of itself is a magnetic contact element (12), and it (12) is for magnetically fastening the clamping ram (10) to the arm, for example.
Claim 4: As can be seen in at least Figures 1, 7, and 8 of Schomers, the magnetic contact element (12) is arranged on the front side/first end of the arm.
Claim 9: Regarding the arm of the device (11), said arm is movable in precisely one spatial direction. Please be advised that when comparing Figure 1 to Figure 6, for example, movement of the arm in the precisely one spatial direction can be seen. Also, as can be seen below in annotated Figure 5 of Schomers, the longitudinal axis of the clamping ram (10) attached to the fastening unit (12) is arranged parallel to this spatial direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
466
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scotuzzi (EPO Publication No. EP 2161097 A1).
Please be advised that an EPO Machine Translation of Scotuzzi is relied upon below.
Claim 1: Figures 1-3 of Scotuzzi show a device (2) with an arm (5) that can be moved in at least one spatial direction in the direction indicated by the double arrow f in Figure 2. As can be seen in Figure 2, arranged a first end (distal end) of the arm is a fastening unit (9-14) which comprises a magnetic contact element (9+10+13). Please be advised that Figure 2-3 shows the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) as interfacing with a workpiece (1). Please further be advised that the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) comprises a magnet (10).
Noting the above, the device (2) taught by Scotuzzi is considered to be inherently capable of performing the intending use of “handling a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar,” simply by supplying a clamping ram (having such construction) that is to be handled, and by placing an end portion of the clamping ram (e.g. shaft or collar) that is attracted to the magnet (10) in operative contact therewith. Particularly noting that Scotuzzi explicitly teaches the device (2) handling a workpiece (1) by fixing an end of the workpiece (1) to the magnet (10) via a sufficient magnetic force [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0024], it is noted that such is further indication that the device (2) of Scotuzzi is capable of “handling a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar.” Note that the claims are drawn to an apparatus with an intended use of “handling a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar,” and the device (2) of Scotuzzi is blind as to the element that the device (2) handles, i.e. said device (2) will handle whichever element which is to be fixed to the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) by means of a sufficient magnetic force between the element and the magnet (10). As such, upon provision of a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar, the device (2) is capable of handling such clamping ram by fixing an end of the clamping to the magnet (10) by means of a sufficient magnetic force. Thus, in at least this way, the device (2) of Scotuzzi can perform the intending use of “handling a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar,” and in doing so, said fastening unit (9-14) provides for fastening the provided clamping ram to the device (2), e.g. to the arm (5) thereof.
Lastly, it is reiterated that the fastening unit (9-14) of Scotuzzi comprises the magnetic contact element (9+10+13), which in turn comprises the magnet (10). In use, the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) provides for magnetically fastening, for example, the provided clamping ram to the device (2), e.g. to the arm (5) thereof.
Claim 4: Figure 2 of Scotuzzi shows the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) as being arranged on the front side/distal end of the arm (5).
Claim 5: Figure 2 of Scotuzzi shows the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) as comprising an alignment tip (9) and the magnet (10). Regarding the alignment tip (9), it has a recess (please see Figure 2) that provides for aligning/centering therein the magnet (10).
Claim 6: Figure 2 of Scotuzzi shows the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) as comprising an ejector pin (13). In comparing Figures 2 and 3 of Scotuzzi, it can be seen that the ejector pin (13) is movable relative to, for example, an alignment tip (9) and the magnet (10) of the magnetic contact element (9+10+13). As such, the ejector pin (13), is “designed to be movable relative to the contact element.” Lastly, please be advised that the ejector pin (13) constitutes such, because when the ejector pin (13) incurs relative movement from the position shown in Figure 3 to that shown in Figure 2, the fastened element, e.g. a provided clamping ram, is ejected.
Claim 7: Figure 2 of Scotuzzi shows the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) as comprising an ejector pin (13). In comparing Figures 2 and 3, it can be seen that the ejector pin (13) is movable relative to, for example, an alignment tip (9) and the magnet (10) of the magnetic contact element (9+10+13). Noting this, please be advised that the ejector pin (13) constitutes such, because when the ejector pin (13) incurs relative movement from the position shown in Figure 3 to that shown in Figure 2, the fastened element, e.g. a provided clamping ram, is ejected.
Figure 2 also shows the ejector pin (13) as being spring loaded by a spring (11). In moving from the position that is shown in shown in Figure 2 to that shown in Figure 3, the ejector pin (13) moves from a retracted position (2) (Figure 2, axially away from a holder (4) of Scotuzzi) into an extended position (Figure 3, axially closer to the holder (4) of Scotuzzi) against the spring force.
Lastly, please note that Applicant set forth the movement of the claimed ejector pin being “preferably by means of a pneumatic unit” (emphasis added). Please note that by setting forth, “preferably,” is it is not actually required for the movement of the claimed ejector pin from the retracted position to the extended position to be “by means of a pneumatic unit.” That is to say that in order to satisfy all of the limitations of claim 7, it is not required for the movement of the claimed ejector pin to “by means of a pneumatic unit.” This is because the claimed pneumatic unit is only a preference and is not actually required due to the use of “preferably.” Noting this, in Scotuzzi, the ejector pin (13) is moved into the extended position from the retracted position by means of the holder (4). While the holder (4) of Scotuzzi is not a pneumatic unit, it is reiterated that claim 7 as presently constructed does not actually require said “pneumatic unit,” but instead only prefers it.
Claim 8: Figure 2 of Scotuzzi shows the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) as comprising an alignment tip (9), a magnet (10), and an ejector pin (13). Regarding the alignment tip (9), it has a recess (please see Figure 2) that provides for centering/aligning therein the magnet (10). As to the ejector pin (13), in comparing Figures 2 and 3 of Scotuzzi, it can be seen that the ejector pin (13) is movable relative to, for example, the alignment tip (9) and the magnet (10). Noting this, please be advised that the ejector pin (13) constitutes such, because when the ejector pin (13) incurs relative movement from the position shown in Figure 3 to that shown in Figure 2, the fastened element, e.g. a provided clamping ram, is ejected. Lastly, as can be seen in Figures 2 and 3, the alignment tip (9) is arranged on the ejector pin (13).
Claim 9: Regarding the arm (5), it is movable in precisely one spatial direction as is indicated by the double arrow f in Figure 2. Next, please note that Figures 1-3 show the workpiece (1) as having a longitudinal axis that extends parallel to this one spatial direction. Noting this, upon provision of a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar, and further upon orienting the provided clamping ram in the same orientation as the workpiece (1) as in Figure 1 of Scotuzzi, for example, the result of placing an end portion of the provided clamping ram (e.g. shaft or collar) that is attracted to the magnet (10) in operative contact therewith is the longitudinal axis of the provided clamping ram that is attached to the fastening unit (9-14) being arranged parallel to the one spatial direction.
Claim 10: Figure 1 of Scotuzzi shows a device (2), and Figures 2 and 3 of Scotuzzi show the device (2) in conjunction with a tool or workpiece holder (4). Please be advised that the tool or workpiece holder (4) is attached on an indexing head/turret head [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0013]. Please be advised that the device (2), workpiece holder (4), and indexing head/ turret head are part of a “set” that further comprises a machine tool [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0003, 0006] having a lathe chuck [paragraph 0009] and a parting tool (15) (as seen in Figure 3). Since the workpiece (1) is set in rotation while attached to the chuck [paragraph 0009], it is inherent that the machine tool of Scotuzzi comprises at least one (workpiece) spindle for rotation of said workpiece (1). Next, please be advised that the device (2) will be described by Examiner in detail.
Figures 1-3 of Scotuzzi show the device (2) with an arm (5) that can be moved in at least one spatial direction in the direction indicated by the double arrow f in Figure 2. As can be seen in Figure 2, arranged a first end (distal end) of the arm is a fastening unit (9-14) which comprises a magnetic contact element (9+10+13). Please be advised that Figure 2-3 shows the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) as interfacing with the workpiece (1). Please further be advised that the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) comprises a magnet (10).
Noting the above, the device (2) taught by Scotuzzi is considered to be inherently capable of performing the intending use of “handling a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar,” simply by supplying a clamping ram (having such construction) that is to be handled, and by placing an end portion of the clamping ram (e.g. shaft or collar) that is attracted to the magnet (10) in operative contact therewith. Particularly noting that Scotuzzi explicitly teaches the device (2) handling the workpiece (1) by fixing an end of the workpiece (1) to the magnet (10) via a sufficient magnetic force [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0024], it is noted that such is further indication that the device (2) of Scotuzzi is capable of “handling a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar.” Note that claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus with an intended use of “handling a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar,” and the device (2) of Scotuzzi is blind as to the element that the device (2) handles, i.e. said device (2) will handle whichever element which is to be fixed to the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) by means of a sufficient magnetic force between the element and the magnet (10). As such, upon provision of a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar, the device (2) is capable of handling such clamping ram by fixing an end of the clamping to the magnet (10) by means of a sufficient magnetic force. Thus, in at least this way, the device (2) of Scotuzzi can perform the intending use of “handling a clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar,” and in doing so, said fastening unit (9-14) provides for fastening the provided clamping ram to the device (2), e.g. to the arm (5) thereof.
Next, it is reiterated that the fastening unit (9-14) of Scotuzzi comprises the magnetic contact element (9+10+13), which in turn comprises the magnet (10). In use, the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) provides for magnetically fastening, for example, the provided clamping ram to the device (2), e.g. to the arm (5) thereof. Based on the foregoing, the “set” of Scotuzzi is provided “with a device according to claim 1.”
As was stated above, the “set” comprises a machine tool, and the machine tool is a lathe [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0003, 0006]. Next, it is reiterated that because the workpiece (1) is set in rotation while attached to the lathe chuck [paragraph 0009], it is inherent that the machine tool of Scotuzzi comprises at least one (workpiece) spindle for rotation of said workpiece (1). Noting how the workpiece (1) is oriented in Figures 1-3 of Scotuzzi such that the axis of rotation of said workpiece (1) extends parallel to the at least one spatial direction (which again is indicated by double arrow f in Figure 2), it follows that the rotational axis of said spindle corresponds to the axis of rotation of said workpiece (1). Based on the foregoing, the rotational axis of the spindle is parallel to the at least one spatial direction in which the arm (5) is movable.
Next, please note that Figures 1-3 show the workpiece (1) as having its axis of rotation/ longitudinal axis extending parallel to this at least one spatial direction. Noting this, upon the provision of the clamping ram which has a shaft with a longitudinal axis and a collar, and further upon orienting the provided clamping ram in the same orientation as the workpiece (1) as in Figure 1 of Scotuzzi, for example, the result of placing an end portion of the provided clamping ram (e.g. shaft or collar) that is attracted to the magnet (10) in operative contact therewith is the longitudinal axis of the provided clamping ram that is attached to the fastening unit (9-14) being arranged parallel to the one spatial direction. Based on the foregoing, the rotational axis of the spindle is further parallel to the longitudinal axis of the provided clamping ram.
Claim 11: Regarding the arm (5), it is movable in precisely one spatial direction as is indicated by the double arrow f in Figure 2.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schomers (Germany Publication No. DE 102008006447 A1) in view of Sarh (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0360003 A1).
Claim 3: Schomers does not provide disclosure as to whether the magnetic contact element (12) “comprises an electromagnet.”
Figure 15 of Sarh though, shows electromagnetic clamping system (1500) which comprises a magnetic contact element (1502+1504) and an arm (1520), wherein the contact element (1502+1504) is arranged on a first end of the arm (1520). With regards to the contact element (1502+1504) of Sarh, it (1502+1504) comprises at least an electromagnet (1502) for magnetic fastening [paragraphs 0100-0102].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the magnetic contact element (1502+1504) of Sarh for the magnetic contact element (12) of Schomers, as this is substitution of one known magnetic contact element for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the magnetic contact element (1502+1504) of Sarh being arranged on the first end (distal end) of the arm of Schomers, and said magnetic contact element (1502+1504) of Sarh providing for magnetically fastening the clamping ram (10) to said arm.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scotuzzi (EPO Publication No. EP 2161097 A1) in view of Sarh (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0360003 A1).
Claim 3: In Scotuzzi, the magnet (unit) (10) of the magnetic contact element (9+10+13) is configured as a permanent magnet [EPO Machine Translation, paragraph 0017]. As such, Scotuzzi does not provide disclosure on “the contact element comprises an electromagnet.”
Figure 15 of Sarh; however, shows electromagnetic clamping system (1500) which comprises a magnetic unit (1502+1504) and an arm (1520), wherein the magnetic unit (1502+1504) is arranged on a first end of the arm (1520). With regards to the magnetic unit (1502+1504), it (1502+1504) comprises an electromagnet (1502) and permanent magnet unit (1504) for magnetic fastening [paragraphs 0100-0104].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the magnetic unit (1502+1504) of Sarh for the magnet (10) Scotuzzi, as this is substitution of one known magnetic unit for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the magnetic unit (1502+1504) of Sarh being arranged on the first end (distal end) of the arm (5) of Scotuzzi, and said magnetic unit (1502+1504) of Sarh providing for magnetically fastening, for example, the provided clamping ram to the device (2), e.g. to the arm (5) thereof.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schomers (Germany Publication No. DE 102008006447 A1) in view of Scotuzzi (EPO Publication No. EP 2161097 A1).
Please be advised that an EPO Machine Translation of Scotuzzi is relied upon below.
Claim 5: Schomers does not provide disclosure on the magnetic contact element (12) comprising “an alignment tip.”
Figure 2 of Scotuzzi though, shows an arm (5) having arranged at a first end (distal end) thereof a magnetic contact element (9+10) comprising an alignment tip (9) and a magnet (10). Regarding the alignment tip (9), it has a recess (see Figure 2) that provides for centering/aligning therein the magnet (10). Note that the magnet (10) interfaces with a workpiece (1) such that the magnetic contact element (9+10) provides for magnetically fastening the workpiece (1) to the arm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the magnetic contact element (9+10) of Scotuzzi for the magnetic contact element (12) of Schomers, as this is substitution of one known magnetic contact element for another, in order to obtain the predictable result of the magnetic contact element (9+10) of Scotuzzi being arranged on the first end (distal end) of the arm of Schomers, and said magnetic contact element (9+10) of Scotuzzi providing for magnetically fastening the clamping ram (10) to said arm.
In making the above substitution, the arm of Schomers is modified to have arranged at the first end (distal end) thereof the magnetic contact element (9+10) of Scotuzzi. As a result, the modified device (11) of Schomers has the alignment tip (9) of Scotuzzi, and said tip (9) has the recess (see Figure 2 of Scotuzzi) that provides for the aligning/centering therein of the corresponding magnet (10). Thus, “the contact element comprises an alignment tip” is satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Vitale whose telephone number is (571)270-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM- 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/MICHAEL VITALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3722
/SUNIL K SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3722
Prosecution Insights