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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2025 and 12/23/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length, the abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. In this case, the abstract is less than 50 words.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “comprising first and second seals” and should be “comprising a first seal and a second seal
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 2-21 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 2 recites “a first end of the spool to a second end of the spool” which is unclear if this is the same or different from the recitation “first and second opposing ends of the spool” of claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “[[a]] the first end of the spool to [[a]] the second end of the spool” such that the ends are the same as recited in claim 1 and the spool appears to define only two axial ends.
Claim 14 recites “towards a second end of the spool…a first end of the spool” which is unclear if these ends are the same or different from claims 1 and/or 2. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “towards [[a]] the second end of the spool…[[a]] the first end of the spool”.
Claim 19 is unclear for the same reasons above for claims 2 and 14. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “[[a]] the first end…[[a]] the second end”.
Claim 21 recites “slidingly couples the first and fourth conduits to another.”, which is unclear if this intended to mean coupling the first and fourth conduits together or to another part. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “slidingly couples the first conduit to the fourth conduit
All dependent claims of these claims are rejected under 112th second paragraph by virtue of their dependency. Thus, claims 3-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 112th second paragraph.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recites “the first flange is included in one of the plurality of valves or the plurality of conduits”, however, claim 7 requires the valves and conduits to be coupled to the spool which the first flange of the spool would be at least reasonably considered as “included” in both the plurality of valves and the plurality of conduits. Therefore, claim 17 does not appear to further limit the subject matter.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 1-2, 7-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (US 2021/0239241 A1, hereinafter “Mullins”) in view of Chirko et al. (US 11,105,175 B2, hereinafter “Chirko”).
In regard to claim 1, Mullins discloses a system (Fig. 8, the spool shown is at least part of a pipeline system) comprising:
a spool (Fig. 8 shows a spool 300);
wherein the spool includes:
a first conduit (Fig. 8, first conduit at 210) coupled to a first flange (Fig. 8, 210 at 218 is coupled to a first flange and in [0023-0025] discloses 218 is coupled to an equipment 12 as shown in Fig. 1A and such equipment can be flanges);
a second conduit (Fig. 8, second conduit at 320) coupled to a second flange (Fig. 8, flange at 225 of 320 couples to a second flange), the second conduit including threads (Fig. 8, 320 has external threads);
a third conduit coupled to the first and second conduits (Fig. 8, third conduit at 310 or 250 which are at least coupled to 210 and 320);
a fourth conduit including threads (Fig. 8, fourth conduit at 240), the threads of the fourth conduit directly engaging the threads of the second conduit (Fig. 8, threads of 240 directly engages threads of 320);
wherein the first, second, and third conduits collectively form a channel (Fig. 8, 210, 320, and 310 at least are collectively coupled together that forms a channel at 216 and 226 to allow fluid to flow) that couples first and second opposing ends of the spool to one another (Fig. 8, first and second opposing ends at 212 and 225) and which includes an axis (Fig. 8, a fluid axis can be defined that extends from the first and second opposing ends);
wherein (a) rotating the fourth conduit about the axis in a first rotational direction moves the second conduit linearly along the axis in a first linear direction (Fig. 8, since 240 is axially fixed between 210 and 250, it allows 240 to rotate and move 320 by the threads linearly along the axis in at least two linear directions); (b) rotating the fourth conduit about the axis in a second rotational direction moves the second conduit linearly along the axis in a second linear direction (Fig. 8, as previously mentioned, rotating 240 allows moving 320 in at least two linear directions); and (c) the first and second rotational directions are opposite of each other and the first and second linear directions are opposite of each other (Fig. 8, the first and second rotational directions in which 240 rotates are opposite of each other and the first and second linear directions are opposite of each other).
Mullins does not expressly disclose the spool is part of a manifold.
In the related field of pipe couplings, Chirko teaches a need to improve systems that include at least manifolds (In 2:17-30 discloses the pipe coupling of Chirko can be used in manifolds) with a pipe coupling (Figs. 1A-5 shows the pipe coupling invention of Chirko for improving manifold systems).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mullins to include a manifold coupled to the spool with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of utilizing the advantages of the spool of Mullins to improve existing manifold systems as taught by Chirko. See MPEP 2143(I)(G) with regard to a motivation to combine references may be implicit and when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. In this case, Mullins in view of Chirko would reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that manifolds are known types of connections in fluid pipeline systems and applying the spool of Mullins to a manifold system is within one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not a manifold and is the structure of the spool. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider known pipe couplings or spools to be attached to known systems such as manifolds.
In regard to claim 2, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 1, and Mullins further discloses wherein:
moving the second conduit in the first linear direction and into a first orientation decreases an overall length of the spool and moving the second conduit in the second linear direction and into a second orientation increases the overall length of the spool (Figs. 8-10, moving 320 can increase or decrease an overall length of the spool similar to applicant’s invention);
the overall length of the spool is measured parallel to the axis and from the first end of the spool to the second end of the spool (Fig. 8, the overall length can be measured parallel to the axis such as at 212 to 225).
In regard to claim 7, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 2, and Chirko further discloses wherein the manifold comprises:
a plurality of valves coupled to the spool; and
a plurality of conduits coupled to the spool (In 2:17-30 discloses the manifold can be plural valve blocks which can be connected to plural conduits such as flowlines. See claim 1 above for the same reasons to combine Mullins and Chirko.).
In regard to claim 8, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 7, but do not expressly disclose wherein the manifold comprises at least one choke coupled to the spool.
However, chokes are well known for controlling fluid flow in a pipeline system. See at least https://www.nov.com/products/choke-valves?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Choke%20valves%20United%20States&utm_term=choke%20manifold&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=choke_valves_united_states&utm_content=&utm_term=choke%20manifold&ran=oBX&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20223039489&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIpOCvitX_lAMVdW5HAR3FZjlxEAAYASAAEgLWf_D_BwE, https://bigironflow.com/collections/choke-manifolds?srsltid=AfmBOopxKSfCEnWap5zpgZgzkX3Bj6Rk5Dd774Pn3aVpS9R1Unb6IGWr, and https://tigersafetyrentals.com/how-to-properly-set-up-and-operate-a-choke-manifold-system/.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the manifold of Mullins in view of Chirko to include at least one choke with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of applying a reliable and well-known component such as chokes in a pipeline system.
As previously mentioned, applicant’s invention is not to a new pipeline system and the crux of applicant’s invention is to a spool capable of being fitted into known manifold systems.
In regard to claim 9, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 8, and Mullins further discloses wherein:
the first conduit couples to the first flange via a first ring joint gasket (Fig. 8, seal groove at 212 is for a gasket that defines a first ring joint gasket for coupling to the first flange);
the second conduit couples to the second flange via a second ring joint gasket (Fig. 8, the second conduit 320 at 225 also has a seal groove that is for a gasket that defines a second ring joint gasket for coupling to the second flange).
In regard to claim 10, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 9, and Mullins further discloses wherein:
rotating the fourth conduit about the axis in the first rotational direction does not move any of the first, third, or fourth conduits linearly along the axis;
rotating the fourth conduit about the axis in the second rotational direction does not move any of the first, third, or fourth conduits linearly along the axis (Fig. 8, rotating 240 in either rotational directions does not move any of 210, 250, or 320).
In regard to claim 11, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 8 and Mullins further discloses comprising a first annular void (See image below, indicated first annular void is a space between 312 and 217), wherein an additional axis is parallel to the axis and intersects the second conduit, the third conduit, and the first annular void (See image below, indicated additional axis is parallel to the axis and intersects 320, 310, and the first annular void).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 12, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 11, and Mullins further discloses wherein:
when the spool is in an expanded orientation the first annular void has a first volume (Fig. 9 shows when the spool is an expanded orientation and the first annular void has a first volume as shown in the image attached above to claim 11);
when the spool is in a compressed orientation the first annular void has a second volume (Fig. 8 shows when the spool is in a compressed orientation and the first annular void has a second volume);
the first volume is greater than the second volume (Figs. 8 and 9, the first volume is greater than the second volume).
In regard to claim 14, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 12 and Mullins further discloses comprising a first seal and a second seal (Fig. 9, first seal and second seal at the two seals at 330), wherein:
the first seal is between the first and third conduits and is configured to resist fluid flowing towards the second end of the spool more so than fluid flowing towards the first end of the spool (Fig. 9, one of the seals 330 is between 210 and 310 is configured to resist fluid flowing towards the second end of the spool more so than fluid flowing toward the first end);
the second seal is between the second and third conduits and is configured to resist fluid flowing towards the first end of the spool more so than fluid flowing towards the second end of the spool (Fig. 9, the other seal 330 is at least between 320 and 310 and is configured to resist fluid flowing towards the first end of the spool more so than fluid flowing towards the second end of the spool).
In regard to claim 15, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 14, and Mullins further discloses wherein the first and second seals are both unidirectional seals (Figs. 8 and 9, the seals at 330 are both unidirectional seals similar to applicant’s invention).
In regard to claim 16, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 14, but do not expressly disclose wherein the additional axis intersects the first and second seals because the seal grooves and seals at 330 are formed on 210. However, such radial seals are known to be formed on either the female component or the male component. In this case, the seals 330 are formed on the female component 210 such that the additional axis does not intersect the seals, however, if the seals were formed on the male component of 310 or 320, the additional axis can be defined as intersecting the seals.
It has been held that matters relating to positioning of parts were held unpatentable if the different positions would not have modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the seals 330 of Mullins to be rearranged on 310 or 320.
Additionally, the crux of applicant’s invention is not to an additional axis intersecting seals and instead is to having at least two seals which Mullins discloses at least two seals 330.
In regard to claim 17, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the first flange is included in one of the plurality of valves or the plurality of conduits (See claim 7 above for the same reasons and see above under section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112).
In regard to claim 18, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 2 wherein and Mullins further discloses the second conduit is slidingly engaged with the third conduit (Fig. 8, 320 is at least slidingly engaged with 310 by a threaded connection) and the second conduit is to slide across the third conduit in response to rotation of the fourth conduit about the axis (Fig. 8, 320 is capable of sliding across 310 in response to rotating 240).
In regard to claim 19, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system of claim 18 and Mullins further discloses wherein:
the first conduit is slidingly engaged with the third conduit (Fig. 8, 210 is slidingly engaged with 310 since the two can slide relative to each other);
the third conduit is slidingly engaged within the spool (Fig. 8, 310 slides within the spool) and is to slide both towards and away from the first end of the spool and both towards and away from the second end of the spool (Fig. 8, 310 can slide both away and towards both the first end and the second end of the spool).
In regard to claim 20, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system according to claim 2, and Mullins further discloses wherein the fourth conduit is slidingly coupled to the first conduit along a path that is parallel to the axis (Fig. 8, 240 is at least slidingly coupled to 210 along a path that is parallel to the axis since there is some space between 250 and 210 where 240 is fixed within).
In regard to claim 21, Mullins and Chirko discloses the system according to claim 2, and Mullins further discloses comprising a bearing surface that slidingly couples the first conduit to the fourth conduit (Fig. 8, axial surface of 240 that contacts 210 defines a bearing surface that slidingly couples to 210 to 240).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 7-10, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
In regard to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 discloses a system (Claim 1 requires at least a spool which is at least part of a pipeline system) comprising:
a manifold including a spool (Claim 1 recites “a spool for oilfield manifolds” which one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably attach the claimed spool to a manifold);
wherein the spool includes:
a first conduit coupled to a first flange;
a second conduit coupled to a second flange, the second conduit including threads;
a third conduit coupled to the first and second conduits;
a fourth conduit including threads, the threads of the fourth conduit directly engaging the threads of the second conduit;
wherein the first, second, and third conduits collectively form a channel that couples first and second opposing ends of the spool to one another and which includes an axis;
wherein (a) rotating the fourth conduit about the axis in a first rotational direction moves the second conduit linearly along the axis in a first linear direction; (b) rotating the fourth conduit about the axis in a second rotational direction moves the second conduit linearly along the axis in a second linear direction; and (c) the first and second rotational directions are opposite of each other and the first and second linear directions are opposite of each other (Claim 1 requires “a first conduit coupled to a first flange…opposite of each other”).
In regard to claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 discloses the system of claim 1, wherein:
moving the second conduit in the first linear direction and into a first orientation decreases an overall length of the spool and moving the second conduit in the second linear direction and into a second orientation increases the overall length of the spool;
the overall length of the spool is measured parallel to the axis and from the first end of the spool to the second end of the spool (Claims 1 and/or 2 also requires “moving the second conduit…end of the spool”).
In regard to claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 discloses the system of claim 2, but does not expressly disclose wherein the manifold comprises:
a plurality of valves coupled to the spool; and
a plurality of conduits coupled to the spool.
However, as previously mentioned, connecting a spool to known plurality of valves and plurality of conduits is within one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 to include the manifold comprises a plurality of valves coupled to the spool and a plurality of conduits coupled to the spool with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of utilizing a reliable and well-known system such as valves and conduits to form a desired pipeline system.
In regard to claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 discloses the system of claim 7, but does not expressly disclose wherein the manifold comprises at least one choke coupled to the spool.
However, as previously mentioned, chokes are within one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 to include the manifold comprises at least one choke coupled to the spool with a reasonable expectation of success in order to have the advantage of utilizing a reliable and well-known system such as chokes to form a desired pipeline system.
In regard to claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 discloses the system of claim 8, wherein:
the first conduit couples to the first flange via a first ring joint gasket (Claim 1 requires “coupling the first conduit to a first flange via a first ring joint gasket”);
the second conduit couples to the second flange via a second ring joint gasket (Claim 1 requires “coupling the second conduit to a second flange via a second ring joint gasket”).
In regard to claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 discloses the system of claim 9, but does not expressly disclose wherein:
rotating the fourth conduit about the axis in the first rotational direction does not move any of the first, third, or fourth conduits linearly along the axis;
rotating the fourth conduit about the axis in the second rotational direction does not move any of the first, third, or fourth conduits linearly along the axis.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 to try rotating the fourth conduit in either rotational directions does not move any of the first, third, or fourth conduits with a reasonable expectation of success because there are a finite number of solutions to design the fourth conduit that moves which conduit. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). In this case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 such that the fourth conduit only moves the second conduit in order to have the advantage of efficiency by directly controlling the second conduit without needing to move any other conduit.
In regard to claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 12,359,754 discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the first flange is included in one of the plurality of valves or the plurality of conduits (See claim 7 above for the same reasons).
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Umstadter (US 2,900,200) and Fraczek et al. (US 2016/0076323 A1) disclose a system comprising a spool such that the spool has at least four conduits similar to applicant’s invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William S. Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-8223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/WILLIAM S. CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights