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 .
Response to Amendment
The response filed on October 23, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 6, 9, and 16-17 have been amended, Claims 5 and 7 have been cancelled, and Claims 19-20 are newly presented. The claims have been amended to overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 4/25/2025, however Claim 1 is objected to, Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as noted below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention Group I (spraying system), Power Supply Species I (pulsed voltage) and Motor Species I (Figs. 2-3) in the reply filed on 9/11/2023 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 7/11/2023 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election was treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 7, which is now cancelled, was withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the term “corresponds” in Claims 1, 19, and 20 is being interpreted based on the disclosure as a whole. The term “corresponds” is not used in the Specification.
Paragraph 0027 of the Specification states “The value of dielectric rigidity can vary according to air variables, such as, humidity that enhances air's conductivity. Therefore, once the spray nozzle 110 starts producing small droplets in the air, dielectric rigidity will decrease. Thus, in some embodiments, a safety coefficient (SC) is included in the design for L, as shown in Equation 3 below. An example value for SC is 3. L=V/Emax * SC”.
Therefore, based on Paragraph 0027 and the claims as a whole, the term “corresponds” in Claims 1, 19, and 20 will be interpreted as meaning “related to”, since the length of the dielectric shaft can be selected based on a chosen safety factor ratio that is applied to V/Emax.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Lines 17-19, “wherein the spraying liquid electrification point is located on the metallic liquid feed tube, wherein the feed tube has a metallic surface arranged to contact liquid in the feed tube from the electrification point to a location where liquid is fed to the spray disk” should be revised to “wherein the spraying liquid electrification point is located on the liquid feed tube, wherein the liquid feed tube has a metallic surface arranged to contact liquid in the liquid feed tube from the electrification point to a location where liquid is fed to the spray disk” to ensure using terminology consistent with what is used elsewhere throughout the claims.
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, 4, 6, 8-9, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because Lines 7-10 state “a spray nozzle comprising a spray disk for blowing the electrified liquid drops unto a target and a motor wherein the spray disk is rotated via rotation of the motor; a dielectric shaft coupled to the motor, the dielectric shaft transferring rotation from the motor to the spray disk” and it is not clear if the dielectric shaft is being claimed as part of the claimed spray nozzle or if the dielectric shaft is being claimed as a component that is separate from the claimed spray nozzle. Fig. 2 shows the dielectric shaft connecting the motor to the spray disk, thus it is not clear how the dielectric shaft can be a separate component from the spray nozzle if the components that it connects are both part of the spray nozzle. Furthermore, Paragraph 0024 of the Specification states “The spray nozzle 110 includes a motor 202 coupled to a dielectric shaft 206 made from dielectric material for high voltage insulation”. Therefore, it appears that the dielectric shaft is part of the spray nozzle. Thus, for the purpose of examination, Claim 1 Lines 7-10 will be interpreted to state “a spray nozzle comprising a spray disk for blowing the electrified liquid drops unto a target, a motor, and a dielectric shaft, wherein the spray disk is rotated via rotation of the motor, the dielectric shaft is coupled to the motor, and the dielectric shaft transfers rotation from the motor to the spray disk”.
Claims 4, 6, 8-9, and 16-20 depend from Claim 1, therefore Claims 4, 6, 8-9, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite because Claim 1 is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 3,008,645 to Morel et al. (“Morel”) in view of US Patent 3,934,055 to Tamny (“Tamny”).
As to Claim 1, Morel discloses an electrostatic centrifugal spraying system (See Figs. 2-3) for direct electrification (See Col. 3 Lines 12-16 disclosing that an electrical connection is at the paint channel #23, thus paint is directly electrified) comprising:
a tank (#56) configured to store liquid (See Col. 3 Line 50 disclosing paint);
a power supply (#53) configured to electrify liquid drops of the stored liquid (See Col. 3 Lines 12-16 and Col. 3 Lines 48-60. The generator #53 supplies electrical energy to #24 which electrifies liquid drops of liquid from #56 that travels through #23);
a spray nozzle (#27, #41, #26, #28, and #34) comprising a spray disk (#27) for blowing the electrified liquid drops unto a target (See Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 56-66. When #27 is rotated, paint droplets will be electrified and provided with at least some amount of blowing force due to rotation of #27 and onto a target being painted) and a motor (#34) wherein the spray disk is rotated via rotation of the motor (See Col. 2 Lines 69-72);
a dielectric shaft (#28 “insulating shaft”) coupled to the motor (See Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 69-72), the dielectric shaft transferring rotation from the motor to the spray disk (See Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 69-72); and
a liquid feed system (#23 and #24) including a liquid feed tube (#24) that extends to the spray nozzle and feeds liquid to the spray disk (See Fig. 2 and Col. 2 Lines 56-60;
wherein the power supply applies a voltage to a spraying liquid electrification point (#42) with the voltage moving through the liquid to the spray nozzle (See Col. 2 Lines 69-72 and Col. 3 Lines 10-16);
wherein the dielectric shaft has a length that corresponds to the voltage applied by the power supply divided by a dielectric rigidity of air (See Morel Col. 2 Lines 24-28 disclosing that insulating material is made of a sufficient length to ensure that the motor is not influenced by parts of the head brought to high potential. The dielectric shaft #28 shown in Fig. 2 extends some length L. Such a length L corresponds to some voltage V applied by the power supply divided by a dielectric rigidity of air E by being related to V/E when some factor, such as a safety factor, is multiplied by V/E. Therefore, #28 has a length that corresponds to a voltage applied by the power supply divided by a dielectric rigidity of air when multiplied by some factor.); and
wherein the spraying liquid electrification point is located on the metallic liquid feed tube (See Fig. 2 and Col. 3 Lines 12-16), wherein the feed tube has a metallic surface arranged to contact liquid in the feed tube from the electrification point to a location where liquid is fed to the spray disk (See Fig. 2, Col. 2 Lines 69-72, and Col. 3 Lines 10-16).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the electrostatic centrifugal spraying system of Morel as applied to Claim 1 above, Morel does not specifically disclose wherein the tank comprises an internal dielectric surface and an external conducting surface, wherein when the liquid is stored in the tank, the tank is configured to act as a capacitor storing electrical energy for electrostatic spraying, and wherein the voltage also moves through the liquid to the tank (See Morel Col. 4 Lines 1-12, specific details of surfaces of #56 are not disclosed).
However Tamny discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Col. 1 Lines 6-16), an electrostatic spraying system (See Fig. 1) for direct electrification (See Col. 6 Lines 1-10 disclosing paint being directly electrified via power supplied to #31 from #26) comprising:
a tank (#24, which includes #50 and #51 per Col. 7 Lines 23-30) configured to store liquid (#P’, which is paint that goes into #50 per Col. 7 Lines 35-40), the tank comprising an internal dielectric surface (#103, which per Col. 11 Lines 45-50 is nonconductive and is thus equivalent to an internal dielectric surface) and an external conducting surface (#51, which per Col. 7 Lines 30-35 is electrically conductive), wherein when the liquid is stored in the tank, the tank is configured to act as a capacitor storing electrical energy for electrostatic spraying (See Col. 7 Lines 38-45 disclosing that #50 of the tank #24 stores electrically conductive paint #P’, and See Col. 7 Lines 58-65 disclosing that paint in #50 is at electrostatic charging potential, thus the tank #24 acts as a capacitor by storing electrical energy for electrostatic spraying);
a power supply (#26) configured to electrify liquid drops of the stored liquid (See Col. 6 Lines 5-20 and See Col. 7 Lines 45-57. The power supply #26 electrifies #P’ from #50 to #15 via hoses #55 and #17.);
a spray nozzle (#15); and
a liquid feed system (#17 and #55) including a liquid feed tube (#17, which includes #31) that feeds liquid to the spray nozzle (See Fig. 1 and Col. 5 Lines 15-20);
wherein the power supply applies a voltage (See Col. 6 Lines 15-20 and Col. 12 Lines 1-20 disclosing #26 being operated in an on and off state. Thus #26 applies a voltage in an energized state where it is on, then stops applying voltage in a de-energized state when it is off, and can then re-apply voltage in an energized state when turned on again, resulting in a voltage that is pulsed by being varied between the on and off states) to a spraying liquid electrification point (#31) with the voltage moving through the liquid to the spray nozzle and the tank (See Col. 6 Lines 5-20, See Col. 7 Lines 45-57, and See Col. 12 Lines 1-20); and
wherein the spraying liquid electrification point is located on the liquid feed tube (See #31 in Fig. 1 and See Col. 6 Lines 1-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying system of Morel as applied to Claim 1 above such by replacing the tank #56 of Morel with the tank #24 of Tamny, such that the tank comprises an internal dielectric surface and an external conducting surface, such that when the liquid is stored in the tank, the tank is configured to act as a capacitor storing electrical energy for electrostatic spraying, and such that the voltage also moves through the liquid to the tank, since doing so would utilize substitution of known components to yield the predictable result of being able to supply electrically conductive paint in the spraying system on a continuous basis while avoiding shock hazards by using a grounded tank (See Tamny Col. 5 Lines 50-65).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny as applied to Claim 1 above, Tamny further discloses wherein the external conducting surface of the tank is grounded (See G3 in Tamny Fig. 1 and See Tamny Col. 5 Lines 35-40).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny as applied to Claim 1 above, Morel does not specifically disclose wherein the voltage is a pulsed voltage and changing frequency and amplitude of the pulsed voltage affects electrification of the liquid drops (See Morel Col. 4 Lines 40-45 disclosing a high voltage, but a pulsed voltage is not specifically disclosed).
However, the spraying system of Tamny further discloses wherein the voltage is a pulsed voltage and changing frequency and amplitude of the pulsed voltage affects electrification of the liquid drop (See Tamny Col. 6 Lines 15-20 and Col. 12 Lines 1-20 disclosing #26 being operated in an on and off state. Thus #26 applies a voltage in an energized state where it is on, then stops applying voltage in a de-energized state when it is off, and can then re-apply voltage in an energized state when turned on again, resulting in a voltage that is pulsed by being varied between the on and off states. If an operator is to modify a frequency or amplitude of the pulsed voltage electrification of the liquid drops will be affected.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying system of Morel as applied to Claim 1 above such that the voltage supplied by the power supply is a pulsed voltage and changing frequency and amplitude of the pulsed voltage affects electrification of the liquid drops, as taught by Tamny, since doing so would yield the predictable result of electrifying liquid as desired by a user (See Tamny Col. 6 Lines 16-20 and See Tamny Col. 12 Lines 1-20. Turning the power supply on and off as desired results in a pulsed voltage. When such a voltage has a frequency and amplitude changed, such a change affects electrification of liquid drops.).
Regarding Claim 17, in reference to the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny as applied to Claim 1 above, Morel does not specifically disclose wherein the dielectric shaft has a length of 40 mm.
However, Morel discloses wherein a length of a dielectric shaft is made to be sufficient to ensure that a motor is not influenced by parts of a spray nozzle being brought to a high voltage potential (See Morel Col. 2 Lines 24-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny as applied to Claim 1 above such that the dielectric shaft has a length of 40 mm, since doing so would yield the predictable result of having a sufficient length to avoid the motor having excessive voltage applied to it (See Morel Col. 2 Lines 24-28), which would help prevent the motor from malfunctioning.
As to Claim 19, in reference to the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny as applied to Claim 1 above, Morel further discloses wherein the length of the dielectric shaft further corresponds to the voltage applied by the power supply divided by the dielectric rigidity of air multiplied by a safety coefficient (See Morel Col. 2 Lines 24-28 disclosing that insulating material is made of a sufficient length to ensure that the motor is not influenced by parts of the head brought to high potential. The dielectric shaft #28 shown in Fig. 2 extends some length L. Such a length L corresponds to some voltage V applied by the power supply divided by a dielectric rigidity of air E by being related to V/E when some safety factor value is multiplied by V/E. Therefore, #28 has a length that corresponds to a voltage applied by the power supply divided by a dielectric rigidity of air when multiplied by some safety factor value.).
Regarding Claim 20, in reference to the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny as applied according to Claim 19 above, Morel does not specifically disclose wherein the safety coefficient is 3 (See Morel Col. 2 Lines 24-28 disclosing that insulating material is made of a sufficient length to ensure that the motor is not influenced by parts of the head brought to high potential, however a specific length or safety factor is not disclosed).
However, Morel discloses wherein a length of a dielectric shaft is made to be sufficient to ensure that a motor is not influenced by parts of a spray nozzle being brought to a high voltage potential (See Morel Col. 2 Lines 24-28).
Furthermore, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device that In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny as applied to Claim 19 above such that the length of the dielectric shaft is set with a safety coefficient that is 3, since doing so would change performance of the spraying system and would yield the predictable result of having a sufficient length to avoid the motor having excessive voltage applied to it (See Morel Col. 2 Lines 24-28), which would help prevent the motor from malfunctioning.
Claims 4, 6, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morel in view of Tamny and GB-2142844-A to Bals (“Bals”).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny as applied to Claim 1 above, Morel does not specifically disclose wherein the spray nozzle further comprises a propeller, the propeller aiding in blowing the electrified liquid drops unto the target (See Morel Fig. 2 showing the spray nozzle including disk #27 but no propeller is shown).
However, Bals discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fluid spraying (See Col. 1 Lines 5-10), an electrostatic centrifugal spraying system (See Fig. 1) for direct electrification (See Col. 2 Lines 15-20) comprising a spray nozzle (#16 and #17) comprising a spray disk (#17) for blowing electrified liquid drops unto a target (See Col. 1 Lines 119-129), and having a spraying liquid electrification point (See Fig. 1 showing a point that #24 connects to #15) that is located on a metallic liquid feed tube (#15. See Fig. 1, Col. 1 Lines 115-120 disclosing steel), wherein the spray nozzle further comprises a propeller, the propeller aiding in blowing the electrified liquid drops unto the target (See Fig. 1 of Bals showing propeller #16 which is made up of three blades per Col. 1 Lines 75-87. Since #16 is rotated on a turbine upstream of spray disk #17, the propeller aids in blowing electrified liquid drops leaving the spray nozzle unto targets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny as applied to Claim 1 above such that the spray nozzle further comprises the propeller of Bals, with the propeller aiding in blowing the electrified liquid drops unto the target, since doing so would yield the predictable result of helping direct fluid from the spraying system on an area that is desired to be sprayed.
As to Claim 6, in reference to the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny and Bals as applied to Claim 4 above, Morel as modified by Tamny and Bals further discloses wherein the spray disk and the propeller are both rotated via the rotation of the motor (See Bals Fig. 1 and Col. 1 Lines 75-85 disclosing that both #16 and #17 are mounted on the turbine, thus both the spray disk and propeller are rotated by rotation of the turbine, which is mounted on stationary bearing #11 per Col. 1 Lines 59-65. Modifying Tamny to include the propeller of Bals will result in both the spray disk and the propeller being rotated via rotation of the motor).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny and Bals as applied to Claim 6 above, Morel further discloses the spraying system comprising a metal shaft (#41) coupled to the dielectric shaft and the spray disk (See Morel Fig. 2 and Col. 3 Lines 12-15).
As to Claim 18, in reference to the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny and Bals as applied to Claim 16 above, Morel does not specifically disclose wherein the metal shaft rotates under action of a bearing (See Morel Fig. 2 showing #41 that rotates in #22, however the portion of #22 that #41 rotates in being a bearing that the metal shaft rotates under action of is not specifically disclosed).
However the spraying system of Bals further discloses wherein a metal shaft rotates under action of a bearing (See Bals Fig. 1 and Col. 1 Lines 60-80 showing a shaft inside bearings #11.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spraying system of Morel in view of Tamny as Bals as applied to Claim 16 above such that the metal shaft of Morel rotates under action of a bearing as taught by Bals, since doing so would yield the predictable result of reducing friction and helping prevent wear of #22 of Morel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, which is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morel in view of Tamny, applicant argues that none of the cited references teach or suggest determining the length of a dielectric shaft in an electrostatic centrifugal spraying system for direct electrification in such a manner. Applicant argues that Morel is completely silent as to how the length of the dielectric shaft is determined and thus fails to suggest using a length corresponding to the applied voltage divided by the dielectric rigidity of air to prevent arcing as recited in amended claim 1.
These arguments are not found persuasive. In accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). It is further noted that the claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005), and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01 (I).
Amended Claim 1 requires that “the dielectric shaft has a length that corresponds to the voltage applied by the power supply divided by a dielectric rigidity of air”. It is noted that the term “corresponds” in Claim 1 is being interpreted based on the disclosure as a whole. The term “corresponds” is not used in the Specification. Paragraph 0027 of the Specification states “The value of dielectric rigidity can vary according to air variables, such as, humidity that enhances air's conductivity. Therefore, once the spray nozzle 110 starts producing small droplets in the air, dielectric rigidity will decrease. Thus, in some embodiments, a safety coefficient (SC) is included in the design for L, as shown in Equation 3 below. An example value for SC is 3. L=V/Emax * SC”. Therefore, based on Paragraph 0027 and the claims as a whole, the term “corresponds” in Claim 1 is interpreted as meaning “related to”, since per the specification the length of the dielectric shaft can be selected based on a chosen safety factor ratio that is applied to V/Emax.
Morel discloses in Col. 2 Lines 24-28 that insulating material is made of a sufficient length to ensure that the motor is not influenced by parts of the head brought to high potential. The dielectric shaft #28 shown in Fig. 2 of Morel extends some length L. Such a length L corresponds to the voltage V applied by the power supply divided by a dielectric rigidity of air E by being related to V/E when some factor, such as a safety factor, is multiplied by V/E. Therefore, #28 has a length that corresponds to a voltage applied by the power supply divided by a dielectric rigidity of air when multiplied by some factor. Thus, the disclosure of Morel reads on the claim limitation of “the dielectric shaft has a length that corresponds to the voltage applied by the power supply divided by a dielectric rigidity of air” when interpreted in light of the specification, and Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morel in view of Tamny.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached on (571)-270-1814. 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752 November 25, 2025