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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 43, line 2, “the plurality of plurality of vertically extending guides” is read as “the plurality of vertically extending guides”.
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.
Claims 28, 35-37 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 28 recites “the scanner” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear “the scanner” is the same or different from the laser aligner. For the purpose of applying art, “the scanner” is interpreted to be the same as the lase aligner.
Claim 35 recites “the first and second grippers” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites “the gripping axis” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites “the controller at least one controller” in line 5. It is unclear which controller the Applicant wants to refer to.
Claim 36 recites “the channel” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites “the gripping axis” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites “the handle” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 37 recites “the at least one controller is configured to cause the robotic arm to lower, by the handle, the at least one receptacle by moving the end effector along an arcuate path”. It is unclear which causes the robotic arm to lower the at least one receptacle, is it the handle or the at least one controller?
Claim 45 recites “the yarn procession system of claim 45”. It is unclear about dependency of claim 45. For the purpose of applying art, claim 45 is interpreted to be dependent on claim 44.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 26, 29, 31-32, 34 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 2021/0404094).
Regarding claim 26, Zhang teaches an apparatus (fig. 5) for servicing a twisting machine (fig. 1, twisting machine 2) having a plurality of rows (fig. 1), each row having at least one receptacle (fig. 1, positioning rod 303) for receiving a yarn package (fig. 1, base yarn 1), the yarn package comprising a tube having yarn wound therearound (para. [0078]), the apparatus comprising:
an automated guided vehicle (AGV) (fig. 5, trolley 5);
a robotic arm (fig. 5, arm 6) coupled to the AGV, wherein the robotic arm comprises an end effector (fig. 5, claws 62, 63),
a rack (fig. 5, rack comprising box 9 and partition board storage box) carried by the AGV, wherein the rack is configured to hold a plurality of empty tubes (fig. 5, empty tubes in box 9) and a plurality of yarn packages (fig. 5, yarn packages 1); and
at least one controller (fig. 3, controller 10) that is configured to cause the robotic arm to:
remove, by the end effector, an empty tube of a depleted yarn package from a first receptacle of the at least one receptacle (para. [0051]);
place the empty tube on the rack (para. [0078]);
lift, by the end effector, a yarn package from the rack (para. [0051], [0063]); and
place the yarn package on the first receptacle (para. [0078]).
Regarding claim 29, Zhang teaches the at least one controller is configured to cause the apparatus to navigate to a rack drop-off location; and decouple the rack from the AGV (para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 31, Zhang teaches the AGV is configured to navigate to a rack having yarn packages thereon (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 32, Zhang teaches the robotic arm is a 6-axis robotic arm (para. [0061]).
Regarding claim 34, Zhang teaches the apparatus is configured to move the at least one receptacle about and between a loading position and an operational position (figs. 8-9, para. [0060], para. [0078], when the basic yarn 1 of the inside yarn position 301 is used up, the position of the inside yarn position 301 and the outer side yarn position 302 are switched; fig. 9 shows a yarn position driving device to drive the yarn position seat).
Regarding claim 44, Zhang teaches a yarn processing system comprising:
at least one twisting machine (fig. 1, twisting machine 2) having a plurality of rows (fig. 1, there are two rows of creel 3 on two sides of the machine), each row having at least one receptacle (fig. 1, positioning rod 303) for receiving a package (para. [0078]) and a handle (figs. 1 and 8, creel 3) for moving the at least one receptacle about and between a loading position for loading the at least one receptacle and an operational position (para. [0059], rotatable creel to rotate the yarn 1 from inside yarn position to the outside yarn position for loading; and figs. 1 and 6 shows an operational position of the creel; fig. 8 shows a loading position of the creel).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27-28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2021/0404094), as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of CN113771057 (hereinafter CN’057).
Regarding claim 27, Zhang does not teach a laser aligner, wherein the laser aligner is configured to scan an area to determine a location of the empty tube on each receptacle of the at least one receptacle of each row of the yarn twisting machine.
However, Zhang teaches visual recognition by an image shot by the mechanical claw camera during operating; and positioning a position of a positioning rod needing yarn loading on the creel through visual recognition by the image shot by the mechanical claw camera (para. [0032]).
Further, CN’057 teaches the position information can be transmitted to the robot by laser guidance so that the robot can drive to a designated site (para. [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mechanical claw camera of Zhang with laser aligner as taught by CN’057 for the benefit of providing accuracy, precision measurement of the position of the positioning rod needing yarn loading on the creel.
Regarding claim 28, the modified structure Zhang-CN’057 teaches the laser aligner is configured to scan across a line that extends along a scanning axis, wherein the at least one controller is configured to cause the robotic arm to move the scanner along an axis perpendicular to the scanning axis (Zhang, fig. 5, para. [0061], as the mechanical claw camera is mounted on the manipulator 6 and the manipulator 6 is 6-axis manipulator and the trolley is instructed by the controller 10 and control system 12, the modified structure Zhang-CN’057 teaches the controller is capable of causing the robotic arm to move the scanner along an axis perpendicular to the scanning axis).
Regarding claim 35, Zhang teaches the first and second grippers define therebetween a channel (para. [0020]); and the controller is configured to control the robotic arm.
Zhang does not teach the first and second grippers are configured to move toward each other along the gripping axis to at least partly enclose a handle of the row of the plurality of rows, wherein the handle is configured for moving the at least one receptacle about and between the loading position and the operational position.
However, Zhang teaches a creel (3) is rotatable and the creel (3) is lowered from an upper position to a lower position for loading yarn (fig. 8 shows an upper position of the rotatable creel on the left and a lower position of the creel on the right); the rotatable creel is adjusted manually or automatically to switch position of the inside yarn position 301 and the outside yarn position 302 (para. [0060]).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Cn’057 teaches the end effector of the robotic arm can move obstacles such as springs for fastening spindles or yarn tubes, guide rods for conducting wire, etc. which are set at the position where the yarn is placed on the machine (machine translation, para. [0032]), and the manipulator grippers are configured to clamp the bobbins/spindles (clamping means pressing parts together for holding or compressing something).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the handle (part of rotatable creel) of Zhang to be moved between an upper position and a lower position by robotic arm as suggested by CN’057 for the benefit of providing a proper position for the robotic arm to take and place the material (CN’057, machine translation, para. [0032]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2021/0404094), as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Morton (US 2018/0011491).
Regarding claim 30, Zhang teaches the rack is configured to couple to the AGV by resting on top of the AGV (fig. 5).
Zhang does not teach the AGV is configured to lower to decouple the rack from the AGV.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Morton teaches the AGV is configured to lower to decouple the rack from the AGV (fig. 9, para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Zhang with the teaching that the AGV is configured to lower to decouple the rack from the AGV as taught by Morton for the benefit of facilitating in transporting the inventory around the factory.
Claims 33 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2021/0404094), as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Kurtz (US 2020/0031608).
Regarding claim 33, Zhang teaches the end effector comprises first and second grippers (claws 62, 63).
Zhang does not teach the first and second grippers are configured to move radially outwardly from each other along gripping axis to bias against inner surfaces of a tube of a yarn package or an empty tube.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kurtz teaches the first and second grippers are configured to move radially outwardly from each other along gripping axis to bias against inner surfaces of a tube of a yarn package or an empty tube (figs. 14, 20, para. [0116], jaws 118 extend radially from each other in order to grip an inner surface of a yarn package 120).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the grippers of Zhang to be capable of moving radially outwardly from each other as taught by Kurtz for the benefit of accommodating different sizes of the yarn packages and/or empty tubes.
Regarding claim 45, Zhang does not teach a depalletizing station as in the claim.
However, Kurtz teaches a depalletizing station (fig. 23) comprising a robotic arm (fig. 18, robot 200), wherein the depalletizing station is configured to receive a pallet (fig. 18, yarn cases 198) comprising a plurality of yarn packages (para. [0123]); remove, using the robotic arm of the depalletizing station, dunnage from the pallets (fig. 19, para. [0127]); and load, using the robotic arm of the depalletizing station, the yarn packages from the pallet onto a rack (fig. 23, para. [0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Zhang with an automated creel assembly as taught by Kurtz for the benefit of improving safety and decreasing process time, changeover time, labor and creel variability (Kurtz, para. [0003]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2021/0404094), as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Ueda (US 2009/0057479).
Regarding claim 36, Zhang does not clearly teach the first and second grippers define respective cutouts that cooperate to define the channel, wherein the cutouts extend perpendicularly to the gripping axis.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ueda teaches the first and second grippers (fig. 8, arms 44) define respective cutouts (fig. 8, there are cutouts at arms 44 to accommodate a flange 10A of the bobbin) that cooperate to define the channel, wherein the cutouts extend perpendicularly to the gripping axis (fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the grippers of Zhang with cutouts as taught by Ueda for the benefit of fixing the bobbins securely during donning and doffing the bobbins (Ueda, abstract).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2021/0404094).
Regarding claim 37, Zhang does not teach the at least one controller is configured to cause the robotic arm to lower, by the handle, the at least one receptacle by moving the end effector along an arcuate path.
However, Zhang teaches the inside yarn position (301) is caused to be lowered (fig. 8) and to rotate to the outside yarn position (figs. 8-9) (i.e. the inside yarn position is caused to move along an arcuate path); the rotation of the creel (3) may be adjusted manually or automatically (para. [0060]); and the trolley controller (10) is configured to control the trolley to take off an empty bobbin and putting a basic yarn on the creel.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the robotic arm of Zhang to be instructed by the controller to lower the at least one receptacle by moving the end effector along an arcuate path so that the system performs automatically with the help of the robotic arm.
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2021/0404094), as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Draghetti (US 5601252).
Regarding claim 38, Zhang does not teach the rack comprises a plurality of vertically extending guides that are configured to receive packages thereon.
However, Draghetti teaches a plurality of vertically extending guides (figs. 1 and 3, guides 10) that are configured to receive packages thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the rack of Zhang with a plurality of vertically extending guides as taught by Draghetti for the benefit of securely holding the packages on the rack of the AGV.
Regarding claim 39, the modified structure Zhang-Draghetti does not teach each vertically extending guide of the plurality of vertically extending guide is configured to receive a plurality of yarn packages thereon in a stacked configuration, wherein the rack comprises a platform that is configured to lift packages upwardly along the vertically extending guides so that at least a portion of the tubes of the packages of a top layer stacked yarn packages extend above the respective vertically extending guides.
However, Draghetti teaches each vertically extending guide of the plurality of vertically extending guide is configured to receive a plurality of packages thereon in a stacked configuration (fig. 1), wherein the rack comprises a platform (fig. 1, two arms 27) that is configured to lift packages upwardly along the vertically extending guides (column 2, lines 34-37) so that at least a portion of the tubes of the packages of a top layer stacked yarn packages extend above the respective vertically extending guides (fig. 1, as the package 2 on the top layer is picked up by extraction device 28, the package 2 extends above the guide 10).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the rack of the modified structure Zhang-Draghetti with a lifting platform as taught by Draghetti for the benefit of facilitating the unloading the package on the top layer while securely holding other packages on the rack.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2021/0404094), as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of CN113526229 (hereinafter CN’229).
Regarding claim 41, Zhang does not teach the rack comprises a plurality of vertically extending guides that are configured to receive empty yarn tubes thereon.
However, CN’229 teaches the rack comprises a plurality of vertically extending guides that are configured to receive empty yarn tubes thereon (fig. 7, empty tubes 6 on the rack).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Zhang with the teaching that the rack comprises a plurality of vertically extending guides that are configured to receive empty yarn tubes thereon as taught by CN’229 for the benefit of assisting in loading and unloading empty tubes.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 2021/0404094) and CN113526229, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Draghetti (US 5601252).
Regarding claim 42, the modified structure Zhang-CN’229 does not teach a structure that is configured to move along at least one vertically extending guide of the plurality of vertically extending guides that are configured to receive empty yarn tubes thereon, wherein the structure is configured to contact a lower surface of a lower-most tube on the at least one vertically extending guide.
However, Draghetti teaches a structure (fig. 1, two arms 27) that is configured to moves along at least one vertically extending guide (column 2, lines 34-37) wherein the structure is configured to contact a lower surface of a lower-most tube on the at least one vertically extending guide (fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the rack of the modified structure Zhang-CN’229 with a lifting platform as taught by Draghetti for the benefit of facilitating the unloading the package on the top layer while securely holding other packages on the rack.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40 and 43 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 40, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and in conjunction with other cited limitations, disclose the rack comprises a scissor lift that is configured to move the platform upwardly and downwardly, wherein the scissor lift comprises an actuation arm, wherein movement of the actuation arm along a horizontal axis causes vertical movement of the platform, wherein the AGV is configured to move the actuation arm. To interchangeably modify Zhang-Draghetti with such structures would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the Applicant’s invention without any disclose, teaching, or suggestion form the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 43, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and in conjunction with other cited limitations, disclose the structure comprises at least one lifting arm that extends across the plurality of vertically extending guides. To interchangeably modify Zhang-CN’239-Draghetti with such structures would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction of the Applicant’s invention without any disclose, teaching, or suggestion form the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 26-40 and 43-45 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13, 17-18, 21 and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, for instance, the difference between the patented claim 1 and the instant claim 26 are minor and obvious from each other. The instant claim 26 is a broader version of the patented claim (i.e. the instant claim 26 does not include the limitations “the end effector comprises first and second grippers that are configured to move…enclose a handle of a row of the plurality of rows” as in the patented claim 1). Therefore, the patented claim 1 would read on the instant claim 26. Furthermore, in the instant claim 26, the claimed limitations can be found in the patented claim 1. Any infringement over the patented claim 1 would also infringe over the instant claim 26.
Hence, the instant claim does not differ from the scope of the patented claim 1.
For the same reason, claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 44 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Claim 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12338553.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights