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 Amendment filed November 19th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 14-18, and 21-23 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome the rejection made under 112(b) in the Non-Final Office Action sent out on August 19th, 2025.
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 1-5, 10-11, 14-18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statter (US 20190262637 A1) in view of McClain (US 20190351272 A1) and Smith et al. (US 20160175633 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Statter discloses a method for shielding against the spread of fire (Paragraph 0002), the method (Paragraph 0002) comprising:
receiving data from at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors in proximity to respective zones of a structure (there are heat sensors and other types of similar sensors configured to activate the system 10 in specific structures/regions, and the device 1104, control system 16, and remote activation 76 assesses risk based on the data, Paragraphs 0066, 0083, 0142);
determining whether the data satisfies risk criteria for a first zone and/or a second zone of a plurality of zones of the structure (Paragraph 0142), wherein: (i) the first zone (“exterior wall”, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0048) is associated with a first set of nozzles (34, Figs. 1-2) of a plurality of nozzles (34, 36, 38, 40, Figs. 1-2) and (ii) the second zone (26, Figs. 1-2) is associated with a second set of nozzles (36, Figs. 1-2) of the plurality of nozzles (34, 36, 38, 40, Figs. 1-2); and
in accordance with a determination that the data satisfies the risk criteria for the first zone and not the second zone (device 1104, control system 16, and remote activation determines which fire suppression system(s) to activate, Paragraph 0142).
However, Statter does not disclose receiving data from at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors including one or more dampness sensors and one or more humidity sensors in proximity to respective zones of a structure and a determination that second data received from the plurality of sensors while the fire suppressant is distributed via the first set of nozzles indicates that one or more of: (i) a measured dampness, via the dampness sensor, at the first zone of the plurality of zones of the structure is above a dampness threshold, and/or (ii) a measured humidity, via the humidity sensor, at a threshold distance from the first zone is at or above a humidity threshold, providing third instructions to the pump to stop distributing the fire suppressant from the supply line as claimed. McClain teaches a method for shielding against the spread of fire (Paragraph 0002) comprising receiving data from at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors (608, there are one or more sensors 608, Fig. 6, Paragraph 0069) including one or more dampness sensors (“moisture sensors”, Paragraph 0069) and one or more humidity sensors (“humidity sensors”, Paragraph 0069) in proximity to respective zones of a structure (sensors 608 detect weather based characteristics to determine the amount of rainwater in a given environment or to anticipate the amount of rainwater in a given environment, Paragraph 0069); and
in accordance with a determination that second data received from the plurality of sensors while the fire suppressant is distributed via the first set of nozzles indicates that one or more of: (i) a measured dampness, via the dampness sensor, at the first zone of the plurality of zones of the structure is above a dampness threshold, and/or (ii) a measured humidity, via the humidity sensor, at a threshold distance from the first zone is at or above a humidity threshold, providing third instructions to the pump to stop distributing the fire suppressant from the supply line (weather station circuitry 618 is connected to sensors 608 that include moisture sensors and humidity sensors detecting a moisture and humidity value in a given environment, and the values measured by the sensors is determined if they are at or above a given threshold value to either operate or prevent the pump from reducing the water level in the distribution tank, Paragraphs 0069-0070).
Statter and McClain are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression system methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of McClain’s method to Statter’s method to have the method comprising receiving data from at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors including one or more dampness sensors and one or more humidity sensors in proximity to respective zones of a structure, and in accordance with a determination that second data received from the plurality of sensors while the fire suppressant is distributed via the first set of nozzles indicates that one or more of: (i) a measured dampness, via the dampness sensor, at the first zone of the plurality of zones of the structure is above a dampness threshold, and/or (ii) a measured humidity, via the humidity sensor, at a threshold distance from the first zone is at or above a humidity threshold, providing third instructions to the pump to stop distributing the fire suppressant from the supply line. Doing so reduces the amount of water that needs to be received from an external water supply (McClain, Paragraph 0007).
However, Statter and McClain do not teach providing first instructions to a pump to distribute a fire suppressant from a reservoir via a supply line fluidically coupled to the plurality of nozzles and providing second instructions to a manifold to distribute an amount of the fire suppressant via the first set of nozzles and not the second set of nozzles as claimed. Smith teaches a method for shielding against the spread of fire (Claim 9), the method (Claim 9) comprising:
providing first instructions to a pump (22, Fig. 3) to distribute a fire suppressant from a reservoir via a supply line fluidically coupled to the plurality of nozzles (34, controller 14 opens a valve and directs pump 22 to supply sprinklers 34, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0125); and
providing second instructions to a manifold to distribute an amount of the fire suppressant via the first set of nozzles and not the second set of nozzles (controller 14 selectively directs fluid from a manifold so there is a precise fluid blast at a predetermined location, and there is an amount of fluid being distributed, Paragraphs 0008, 0125, 0127), such that at least the first zone of the structure is presoaked with fire suppressant (the amount of fluid being distributed at a predetermined location through the controller is designed to soak the surrounding landscape with fire retardant to mitigate a fire, Paragraphs 0005, 0008, 0125, 0127).
Statter, McClain, and Smith are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression system methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of providing first instructions to a pump and providing second instructions to a manifold in Smith’s method to Statter’s method, as modified by McClain, to have the method providing first instructions to a pump to distribute a fire suppressant from a reservoir via a supply line fluidically coupled to the plurality of nozzles, and providing second instructions to a manifold to distribute an amount of the fire suppressant via the first set of nozzles and not the second set of nozzles, such that at least the first zone of the structure is presoaked with fire suppressant. Doing so ensures that a specific area in need of fire suppression is protected while providing more control to the user over the plurality of nozzles (Smith, Paragraphs 0007-0009).
Regarding claim 2, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter further discloses the first set of nozzles (34, Figs. 1-2) are distinct and separate from the second set of nozzles (36, shown in Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0048-0049).
With respect to claim 3, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter further discloses the fire suppressant is selected from the group consisting of: water, chemicals, gasses, and foams (Paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 4, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter further discloses before providing the first and second instructions, providing fourth instructions to a vacuum fluidically coupled to the supply line, wherein the fourth instructions cause the vacuum to depressurize the supply line with a first pressure (double tank arrangement is allowed to depressurize for an interval of time when certain valves are closed at certain times, Paragraphs 0072, 0074);
receiving pressure data from at least one other sensor of the plurality of sensors (one monitors and measures the water supply pressure in the fire suppression system through water pressure sensing devices, Paragraphs 0017-0018, 0090);
determining whether the pressure data satisfies a pressure criterion (one determines that a fire suppression system demand exceeds a threshold, such as the water supply pressure, Paragraphs 0017-0018); and
in accordance with a determination that the pressure data satisfies the pressure criterion, providing the first and second instructions (one or more techniques includes changing a flow of a fire retardant of the fire suppression system to at least a first surface of the structure, based on determining the fire suppression system demand, such as the water supply pressure, exceeds the threshold, Paragraphs 0017-0018).
In regards to claim 5, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 4 above. Statter further discloses the fourth instructions are provided periodically (it will be interpreted that periodically means regular interval of time, instructions are provided for an interval of time, Paragraph 0072).
With respect to claim 10, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter further discloses the method further comprising providing seventh instructions to the pump to stop distributing the fire suppressant from the supply line (Paragraph 0070).
Regarding claim 11, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter further discloses the risk criteria include a fire proximity threshold (Paragraphs 0110-0111, 0113); and
determining whether the data satisfies the risk criteria for the first zone and/or the second zone includes determining whether a location of a fire is at or within the fire proximity threshold (Paragraphs 0111-0113).
In regards to claim 14, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter discloses the method further comprising:
before a determination that the data satisfies the risk criteria, receiving from a remote device a command to distribute the fire suppressant (Paragraphs 0070-0071); and
in response to receiving the command, providing the first and second instructions (Paragraph 0142).
Regarding claim 15, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter discloses the method further comprising:
before providing the first and second instructions, providing a request to a remote device to initiate distribution of the fire suppressant (Paragraph 0142); and
responsive to the request, receiving a command from the remote device to distribute the fire suppressant (Paragraph 0142); and
in response to receiving the command, providing the first and second instructions (Paragraph 0142).
With respect to claim 16, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter discloses the method further comprising providing the data from the at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors to a remote device (Paragraphs 0066, 0083, 0142).
With respect to claim 17, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter further discloses the data includes a first indication of a fire, wherein the first indication of the fire includes at least a location of the fire (Paragraph 0142).
In regards to claim 18, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter discloses the method further comprising:
receiving additional data from at least one other structure distinct from the structure (Paragraph 0142);
updating the data using the additional data (Paragraph 0100); and
determining whether the updated data satisfies the risk criteria for the first zone and/or the second zone of the structure (Paragraphs 0099-100, 102, 0142).
Regarding claim 21, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter discloses the method further comprising:
determining whether the data satisfies risk criteria for a third zone of the plurality of zones of the structure (Paragraph 0142); and
in accordance with a determination that the data satisfies the risk criteria for the third zone (device 1104, control system 16, and remote activation determines which fire suppression system(s) to activate, Paragraph 0142),
a third set of nozzles (38, Figs. 1-2) associated with the third zone (28, Figs. 1-2), the other amount of the fire suppressant determined based (i) on another level of risk determined based on the data, different than the level of risk associated with the first zone and (ii) a capacity of the reservoir (system may have a flow meter and/or water pressure sensing device at the point of connection to the water supply and/or downstream, and the monitoring/suppression system can adjust the hydraulic capacity of the water supply and flow rate within an area based on whether the system demand exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the water supply and the risk of the area, Paragraph 0090, 0142).
Smith further teaches the method comprising providing fourth instructions to the manifold to distribute another amount of the fire suppressant via a third set of nozzles (controller 14 selectively directs fluid from a manifold so there is a precise fluid blast at a predetermined location, and there is an amount of fluid being distributed, Paragraphs 0008, 0125, 0127).
With respect to claim 22, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter discloses the method further comprising:
receiving additional data from at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors (there are heat sensors and other types of similar sensors configured to activate the system 10, and the device 1104, control system 16, and remote activation 76 assesses risk based on the data, Paragraphs 0066, 0083, 0142); and
in accordance with another determination that the additional data satisfies the risk criteria for the first zone (device 1104, control system 16, and remote activation determines which fire suppression system(s) to activate, Paragraph 0142):
providing fourth instructions to adjust the amount of the fire suppressant distributed via the first set of nozzles based (i) on a new level of risk determined based on the additional data and (ii) a capacity of the reservoir (system may have a flow meter and/or water pressure sensing device at the point of connection to the water supply and/or downstream, and the monitoring/suppression system can adjust the hydraulic capacity of the water supply and flow rate within an area based on whether the system demand exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the water supply and the risk of the area, Paragraph 0090, 0142).
Smith further teaches the method comprising providing fourth instructions to a manifold to adjust the amount of the fire suppressant distributed via the first set of nozzles (controller 14 selectively directs fluid from a manifold so there is a precise fluid blast at a predetermined location, and there is an amount of fluid being distributed, Paragraphs 0008, 0125, 0127).
With respect to claim 23, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. Statter further discloses the second instructions include (i) a first amount to be distributed at a first subset of the first set of nozzles (depending on area that needs to be suppressed, the system can apply a certain amount of fluid to a specific part of an area, Paragraphs 0079, 0090-0091), and (ii) a second amount of the fire suppressant to be distributed at a second subset of the first set of nozzles (depending on area that needs to be suppressed, the system can apply a certain amount of fluid to a specific part of an area, Paragraphs 0079, 0090-0091), the first and second amounts based on the level of risk and a capacity of the reservoir (system may have a flow meter and/or water pressure sensing device at the point of connection to the water supply and/or downstream, and the monitoring/suppression system can adjust the hydraulic capacity of the water supply and flow rate within an area based on whether the system demand exceeds the hydraulic capacity of the water supply and the risk of the area, Paragraph 0090, 0142).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statter (US 20190262637 A1) in view of McClain (US 20190351272 A1) and Smith et al. (US 20160175633 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20200197735 A1).
In regards to claim 6, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 4 above. However, Statter, McClain, and Smith, do not teach the method further comprising in accordance with a determination that the pressure data does not satisfy the pressure criterion, providing a warning notification. Li teaches a method for shielding against the spread of fire (Paragraphs 0003, 0008), the method (Paragraphs 0003, 0008) comprising in accordance with a determination that the pressure data does not satisfy the pressure criterion, providing a warning notification (Paragraph 0068).
Statter, McClain, Smith, and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression system methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of providing a warning notification in Li’s method to Statter’s method, as modified by McClain and Smith above in claim 4, to have the method further comprising in accordance with a determination that the pressure data does not satisfy the pressure criterion, providing a warning notification. Doing so better alerts the user about the pressure data (Li, Paragraph 0068).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statter (US 20190262637 A1) in view of McClain (US 20190351272 A1) and Smith et al. (US 20160175633 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Li et al. (US 20200197735 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hart et al. (US 20190099631 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Statter, as modified by McClain, Smith, and Li, teaches the method of claim 6 above. Statter further discloses the notification includes at least one of an indication of zones of the structure that do not satisfy the pressure criterion (Paragraph 0090). However, Statter, McClain, and Smith do not teach a warning notification. Li teaches the warning notification (Paragraph 0068).
Statter, McClain, Smith, and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression system methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of providing a warning notification in Li’s method to Statter’s method, as modified by McClain and Smith above in claim 4, to have the warning notification includes at least one of an indication of zones of the structure that do not satisfy the pressure criterion. Doing so better alerts the user about the pressure data (Li, Paragraph 0068).
However, Statter, McClain, Smith, and Li do not teach an indication of one or more potential faults. Hart teaches a method for shielding against the spread of fire (Paragraph 0021), the method (Paragraph 0021) comprising an indication of one or more potential faults (Paragraph 0037, Claim 9).
Statter, McClain, Smith, Li, and Hart are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression system methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of an indication of one or more potential faults in Hart’s method to Statter’s method, as modified by McClain, Smith, and Li above in claim 6, to have the warning notification includes at least one of an indication of zones of the structure that do not satisfy the pressure criterion, and an indication of one or more potential faults. Doing so notifies the user when the system is malfunctioning (Hart, Paragraph 0037).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statter (US 20190262637 A1) in view of McClain (US 20190351272 A1) and Smith et al. (US 20160175633 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wilkins et al. (US 20080277125 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 4 above. Statter discloses the method comprising providing instructions to the vacuum to depressurize to the supply line (double tank arrangement is allowed to depressurize for an interval of time when certain valves are closed at certain times, Paragraph 0072).
However, Statter, McClain, and Smith do not teach the method further comprising fifth instructions of a second pressure that is greater than the first pressure, wherein the second pressure is configured to test the supply line and/or the plurality of nozzles. Wilkins teaches a method for shielding against the spread of fire (Paragraph 0028), the method (Paragraph 0028) comprising having a second pressure that is greater than the first pressure (second sensor can have a higher pressure than first sensor, Paragraph 0050), the second pressure is configured to test the supply line and/or the plurality of nozzles (CMU monitors for leakage based on a high pressure condition reported by a first sensor 20, and the methodology can be altered to suit a desired effect such as having the second pressure test the supply line, Paragraph 0050).
Statter, McClain, Smith, and Wilkins are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression system methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a second pressure that is greater than the first pressure, wherein the second pressure is configured to test the supply line and/or the plurality of nozzles in Wilkins’ method to Statter’s method, as modified by McClain and Smith above in claim 4, to have fifth instructions to the vacuum to depressurize to the supply line with a second pressure that is greater than the first pressure, wherein the second pressure is configured to test the supply line and/or the plurality of nozzles. Doing so improves the system efficiency by notifying the user when there is a leakage in the system (Wilkins, Paragraph 0050).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statter (US 20190262637 A1) in view of McClain (US 20190351272 A1) and Smith et al. (US 20160175633 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Huefner (US 20190175965 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 4 above. However, Statter, McClain, and Smith do not teach providing sixth instructions to a compressor fluidically coupled to the supply line, wherein the sixth instructions cause the compressor to pressurize the supply line. Huefner teaches a method for shielding against the spread of fire (Paragraph 0002), the method (Paragraph 0002) comprising providing instructions to a compressor fluidically coupled to the supply line, wherein the instructions cause the compressor to pressurize the supply line (15, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0032).
Statter, McClain, Smith, and Huefner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression system methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of instructions to a compressor fluidically coupled to the supply line in Huefner’s method to Statter’s method, as modified by McClain and Smith above in claim 4, to have the method comprising after providing the fourth instructions, providing sixth instructions to a compressor fluidically coupled to the supply line, wherein the sixth instructions cause the compressor to pressurize the supply line. Doing so assists with a proper flow of fluid from the reservoir (Huefner, Paragraph 0032).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Statter (US 20190262637 A1) in view of McClain (US 20190351272 A1) and Smith et al. (US 20160175633 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smagac et al. (US Patent 5,165,482).
Regarding claim 12, Statter, as modified by McClain and Smith, teaches the method of claim 1 above. However, Statter, McClain, and Smith do not teach the risk criteria include a predetermined fire velocity. Smagac teaches a method for shielding against the spread of fire (Col. 8, Ln. 29-31), the method (Col. 8, Ln. 29-31) comprising the risk criteria include a predetermined fire velocity (Col. 7, Ln. 1-6, Claim 7); and
determining whether the data satisfies the risk criteria for the first zone and the second zone includes determining whether a velocity of a fire is at or greater than the predetermined fire velocity (Col. 7, Ln. 1-6, Claim 7).
Statter, McClain, Smith, and Smagac are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of fire suppression system methods. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of the risk criteria include a predetermined fire velocity in Smagac’s method to Statter’s method, as modified by McClain and Smith above in claim 1, to have the method comprising the risk criteria include a predetermined fire velocity, and determining whether the data satisfies the risk criteria for the first zone and the second zone includes determining whether a velocity of a fire is at or greater than the predetermined fire velocity. Doing so provides a more effective method of fire prevention by detecting the presence of fire before it becomes an immediate threat (Smagac, Col. 8, Ln. 29-34).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12, 14-18, and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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 at (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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752