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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claims 14, 17, 23, 24, and 26-31 are currently pending.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections previously applied in view of Brown have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Brown.
In regards to amended claim 14, Applicant argues that Canfield cannot be used to cure the deficiencies of a base reference because “Canfield does not disclose or teach the amended arrangement in which each connecting rod has a distal end directly rotatably connected to the supporting element by a first spherical or semi-spherical joint” (page 7, arguments). Examiner kindly points out that Canfield is relied upon below in order to teach the subject matter directed towards the claimed crank system and connecting rod opposite end connected to a crank, not the distal end directly and rotatably connected to the supporting element. Please see at least spherical joints (28) comprising balls (30) within the newly provided reference of Ballantyne below.
Please see the updated grounds of rejection provided below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
at least three handling means (…) configured for handling the supporting element to which they are connected in order to arrange the supported card with an inclination useful for its treatment in claims 14 and 27. Examiner is relying upon handling means 3, 23 (page 6, lines 16-25) for sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, please amend “connect to a rank” to read “connected to a crank”.
In claim 27, please amend “each of the first end is rotatably…” to read “first ends”.
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 27-31 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.
Regarding claim 27, claim 27 has been amended to recite “wherein each second spherical or semi-spherical joint is a ball-type joint via a second spherical joint or a second semi-spherical joint”. It is unclear what is being imparted by the recitation, as a second spherical joint or a second semi-spherical joint has previously established antecedent basis, i.e. there may be an erroneous duplication within the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim is being interpreted so as to provide an ‘or’ statement, as a ball-type joint is spherical and thus lack of the optional ‘or’ would impart a contradiction between a ball-type joint and a semi-spherical joint.
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24 and 26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ballantyne (US 5,740,699).
Regarding claim 24, Ballantyne discloses a device for positioning a card within a printer (wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with a card, wherein the prior art is designed as a plate 14 which is capable of supporting and retaining an element; furthermore, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69), the device comprising:
a basic structure (12, Figure 1);
a support element (14) defining a bearing plane (see Figure 1 regarding the surface of element 14) and configured to receive and secure a card at a desired focal distance relative to a laser source of the printer (see Figure 1; see also Col. 2, lines 19-27; wherein Col. 3, lines 51-57 disclose that the device is usable in other tool environments; wherein in the context of the claimed invention, the support element comprises a bearing plane configured for receiving and retaining a workpiece, wherein the plate 14 comprises a bearing plane on which a workpiece can be placed and retained, i.e. the claim does not positively recite a physical retaining structure aside from a bearing plane, and thus Ballantyne discloses the claimed invention under broadest reasonable interpretation; see also Examiner’s explanation of intended use in the Abstract above); and
a plurality of linear actuators each extending between a first end and a second end (see Figure 1 regarding actuators 16a, 16b, and 16c, as well as extendible means 32, each having a first and second end),
the first end of at least a portion of the plurality of linear actuators being rotatably coupled to the support element via a spherical or a semi-spherical joint (see spherical joints 28 comprising balls 30, Figure 1, see also Col. 2, lines 34-39),
at least one linear actuator of the plurality of linear actuators being rotatably coupled to the basic structure at the second end (see u-joints 26 which rotatably couple the actuators 16a, 16b, and 16c to the base 12; see Col. 2, lines 60-67), and
at least one other linear actuator (32) of the plurality of linear actuators having the second end directly fastened to the basic structure (12) without a rotational joint such that the other linear actuator is constrained to only linear movement relative to the basic structure (wherein tube 34 of element 32 extends rigidly from base 12 along axis C; see Col. 2, lines 35-43 and Col. 3, lines 1-8),
wherein the plurality of linear actuators are configured to vertically and rotatably position the support element (14) at a desired incline and distance with respect to the laser source within the printer (see Col. 2, lines 19-67 and positions 14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 14-4 in Figure 2; wherein Examiner also recognizes the intended use of the claimed invention within the context of a printer having a laser, however, the claimed invention is drawn towards an apparatus, not the combination of the apparatus and a printer having a laser, and thus the printer and laser source are not a part of the claimed invention; wherein the prior art meets the functional limitations required, please see the above citations regarding the movement of plate 14).
Regarding claim 26, Ballantyne discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Ballantyne further discloses wherein the at least one linear actuator that is rotatably coupled to the basic structure at the second end is rotatably coupled to the basic structure via an electric motor coupled to the basic structure and a connector coupling the linear actuator and the electric motor (wherein each actuator 16a, 16b, 16b is rotatably coupled to the base 12 via motor 22 which is coupled to the base 12, see Figure 1, and wherein there is a motor 22 connected to ball screw 24, see Col. 2, lines 19-34).
Regarding claim 27, Ballantyne discloses card positioning device for use inside a printer (wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with a card, wherein the prior art is designed as a plate 14 which is capable of supporting and retaining an element; furthermore, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69)), the card positioning device comprising:
a supporting element (14) comprising a bearing plane (see Figure 1 regarding the surface of element 14) and configured for receiving a card from an external supplying means and for retaining the card on the bearing plane for handling (see Figure 1; see also Col. 2, lines 19-27; wherein Col. 3, lines 51-57 disclose that the device is usable in other tool environments; wherein in the context of the claimed invention, the support element comprises a bearing plane configured for receiving and retaining a workpiece, wherein the plate 14 comprises a bearing plane on which a workpiece can be placed and retained, i.e. the claim does not positively recite a physical retaining structure aside from a bearing plane, and thus Ballantyne discloses the claimed invention under broadest reasonable interpretation; see also Examiner’s explanation of intended use in the Abstract above); and
at least three handling means, each extending between a first end and a second end (see actuators 16a, 16b, 16c; see Col 2, lines 20-26 and 46-67; see also extensible element 32), each of the first end is rotatably connected to the supporting element (14) via a first spherical joint or a first semi-spherical joint (see spherical joints 28 comprising balls 30, Figure 1, see also Col. 2, lines 34-39; see also u-joint of element 32 which is semi-spherical), and at least two of the second ends of the at least three handling means are each rotatably connected to a basic structure (see base 12) via a second spherical joint or a second semi-spherical joint (see u-joints 26 which rotatably couple at least two of the actuators 16a, 16b, and 16c to the base 12; see Col. 2, lines 60-67),
wherein each second spherical or semi-spherical joint is a ball-type joint via a second spherical joint or a second semi-spherical joint (please see the 112b rejection provided above, wherein Examiner is treating the claim as an ‘or’, and wherein see joints 26 have an annular configuration, i.e. semi-spherical), and
wherein cooperative actuation of the at least three handling means provides both inclination and vertical movement of the supporting element relative to the basic structure to maintain a controlled inclination angle and focal distance of the card with respect to a laser source of the printer (see Col. 2, lines 19-67 and positions 14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 14-4 in Figure 2; wherein Examiner also recognizes the intended use of the claimed invention within the context of a printer having a laser, however, the claimed invention is drawn towards an apparatus, not the combination of the apparatus and a printer having a laser, and thus the printer and laser source are not a part of the claimed invention; wherein the prior art meets the functional limitations required, please see the above citations regarding the movement of plate 14).
Regarding claim 28, Ballantyne discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Ballantyne further discloses wherein the at least three handling means comprise three handling means (please see a combination of three elements selected from 16a, 16b, 16c, and 32).
Regarding claim 29, Ballantyne discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Ballantyne further discloses wherein one of the three handling means has the second end directly fastened to the basic structure without a rotational joint such that the one of the three handling means has only a linear movement with respect to the basic structure (wherein within the scope of claim 29, the three handling means comprise two of actuators 16a, 16b and 16c, and the third handling means comprises extensible element 32; wherein element 32 is fastened to and extends rigidly from base 12 along axis C; see also Col. 2, lines 35-43 and Col. 3, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 30, Ballantyne discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Ballantyne further discloses wherein the at least three handling means comprise four handling means (see elements 16a, 16b, 16c, and 32).
Regarding claim 31, Ballantyne discloses the claimed invention as applied above, wherein Ballantyne further discloses wherein the at least three handling means comprise linear actuators (wherein elements 16a, 16b, 16c are linear actuators, i.e. within the scope of claim 31, the at least three handling means comprise the linear actuators, see also Col. 2, lines 19-27).
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.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantyne (US 5740599) in view of Canfield (US 5699695).
Regarding claim 14, Ballantyne discloses a card positioning device for use inside a printer (wherein Examiner acknowledges the intended use of the device with a card, wherein the prior art is designed as a plate 14 which is capable of supporting and retaining an element; furthermore, claim analysis is understood as highly fact-dependent, thus is only limited by positively recited elements. Therefore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459; see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69.), the card positioning device comprising:
a supporting element (14) comprising a bearing plane (see Figure 1 regarding the surface of element 14) configured for receiving a card from an external supplying means and for retaining the card on the bearing plane for handling (see Figure 1; see also Col. 2, lines 19-27; wherein Col. 3, lines 51-57 disclose that the device is usable in other tool environments; wherein in the context of the claimed invention, the support element comprises a bearing plane configured for receiving and retaining a workpiece, wherein the plate 14 comprises a bearing plane on which a workpiece can be placed and retained, i.e. the claim does not positively recite a physical retaining structure aside from a bearing plane, and thus Ballantyne discloses the claimed invention under broadest reasonable interpretation; see also Examiner’s explanation of intended use in the Abstract above);
at least three handling means, each under a control unit to arrange an inclination of the supporting element for positioning the card at a selected angle and substantially constant distance with respect to a laser source of the printer (see actuators 16a, 16b, 16c; see Col 2, lines 20-26 and 46-67; see also Col. 2, lines 44-45 disclosing a robotic system, i.e. a controlled system),
wherein each of the at least three handling means comprising a connecting rod system having a distal end directly and rotatably connected to the supporting element (14; see Figure 1 regarding the rod configuration of the actuators 16a, 16b, and 16c) by a first spherical joint or a first semi-spherical joint (see spherical joints 28 comprising balls 30, Figure 1, see also Col. 2, lines 34-39) and an actuating means (wherein each linear actuator includes a motor 22 for actuating movement, see Col. 2, lines 23-39 and 46-53); and
a connecting element (see element 32) comprising a first end and a second end (see Figure 1), wherein the first end of the connecting element is rotatably connected to the supporting element (14) through a second spherical or second semi-spherical joint (see joint 42, which is a U-joint that is shown as semi-spherical), the second end of the connecting element is directly fastened to a basic structure (12) without a rotational joint and is not rotatably connected to the basic structure (wherein tube 34 of element 32 extends rigidly from base 12 along axis C; see Col. 2, lines 35-43 and Col. 3, lines 1-8), and the at least three handling means are rotatably connected to the basic structure (see u-joints 26 which rotatably couple the actuators 16a, 16b, and 16c to the base 12; see Col. 2, lines 60-67; see also the combination statement as applied below, wherein the rods 60 of Canfield are also rotatably connected to support plate 46 as they are configured to pivot), and
wherein cooperative actuation of the connecting-rod-crank systems provides controlled inclination of the supporting element around at least two spatial axes for generating multiple laser incident angles (see Col. 2, lines 19-67 and positions 14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 14-4 in Figure 2; wherein Examiner also recognizes the intended use of the claimed invention within the context of a printer having a laser, however, the claimed invention is drawn towards an apparatus, not the combination of the apparatus and a printer having a laser, and thus the printer and laser source are not a part of the claimed invention; wherein the prior art meets the functional limitations required, please see the above citations regarding the movement of plate 14).
However, Ballantyne does not explicitly teach each of the handling means comprises a connecting rod-crank system such that the connecting rods also have an opposite end connect to a rank rotatably connected to the actuating means.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor for controlled motion devices, Canfield (US 5699695) teaches three actuators (50) mounted on support plate (46), with drive shafts (54) of actuators (50) intermittently rotating or oscillating, and wherein the rotation or oscillation is converted to reciprocation of connecting rods (60) through cranks (56) that are fixed to the drive shaft (54) and at the opposite end to connecting rods (60; see also Col. 6, lines 46-67), i.e. a connecting-rod-crank system (Figure 4) including connecting rods (60) which are rotatably connected at one end and having an opposite end connected to a crank (56) rotatably connected to an actuating means (50, 54; see Figure 4, and Col. 6, lines 46-67).
Both Ballantyne and Canfield are directed towards the field of systems designed to use actuators and linked elements to effect a desired orientation of a distal end plate; please see at least the Abstract of both. Ballantyne specifically intimates and suggests alternative forms of the actuators in Col. 3, lines 50-57. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Ballantyne to include the crank control mechanism as taught by Canfield. One would be motivated to do so because the controlling motions may be in excess of 180 degrees, thus allowing greater flexibility for operations and access to a workpiece, please see Col. 7, lines 1-16 of Canfield. Canfield also notes that the motion imparted by the actuators (50) can be constrained such that the motion is held fixed (Col. 7, lines 1-16). The incorporation of the teachings of Canfield would provide an optional supplemental movement in the device of Ballantyne, and may be fixed or selectively used when desired. The additional reciprocation ability would increase the overall shortening/lengthening capabilities of the actuators of Ballantyne. Furthermore, the implementation of a crank in the context of a motion system using actuators and a plate would be have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, and would be another way to achieve the degree of freedom motion transfer, which is suggested by Ballantyne.
Regarding claim 17, Ballantyne as modified by Canfield teaches the invention as applied above, wherein modified Ballantyne further teaches wherein the supporting element (Ballantyne: see element 14) is rotatably coupled to the basic structure (12) through a third spherical or a third semi-spherical joint (see joints 26 in Ballantyne which have an annular configuration, i.e. semi-spherical, as well as the crank and pivotal connection shown in Figure 4 of Canfield, i.e. also a semi-spherical joint which serves to couple the plate element 14 to the base 12 of Ballantyne as modified).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ballantyne (US 5740599) in view of Canfield (US 5699695), and in further view of BIELESCH (DE-102017211254-A1).
Regarding claim 23, Ballantyne as modified by Canfield teaches the invention as applied above. However, modified Ballantyne does not explicitly teach the invention is a printer comprising the card positioning device of claim 14. However, Bielesch teaches using a card positioning device in a plastic card treatment device, i.e. a printer (please see at least [0001-0005] describing applying laser radiation to achieve different markings, i.e. applying print via laser; see [0011-0012] regarding the intended workpiece, including at least identify cards, identification cards, access cards, driving licenses).
Both Bielesch and modified Ballantyne use positioning devices, and Ballantyne is silent regarding the specific application of the system. Ballantyne intimates and suggests systems within manufacturing, machining, or industrial processes; see at least Col. 3, lines 51-57. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the positioning device of claim 14 within the context of a printer, as taught by Bielesch. One would be motivated to do so not only because Ballantyne suggests wide applicability of the device, but also because the benefits of the device of Ballantyne having optimized strength (Col. 3, lines 9-19) would have lent itself to the highly detailed and technical field taught by Bielesch.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights