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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/26/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 02/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5, 10-17 and 19-21 remain pending in the application and are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 and 35 U.S.C 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant's amendment.
New grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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:
• “dispensing device configured to dispense an inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the
laboratory sample container” in claim 14,
• “sterilizing device configured to sterilize the laboratory sample container” in claim 19
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.
In this instant case, the corresponding structure for:
the “dispensing device” is being interpreted as a device that is designed to release a specific amount of a fluid (paragraph 0058) comprises a roller pump 142 (Fig. 3 and paragraph 0114) and equivalents thereof;
the “sterilizing device” is being interpreted as a device that can perform sterilization through heat, chemicals, irradiation, high pressure, and filtration (paragraphs 0061) or an UV light source (paragraph 0116) and the equivalents thereof.
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 1-5 10-17, and 19-21 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 1 recites the limitation "wherein the cutting device comprises a laser, a cutting wire and/or a cutting knife" in lines 8-9. This limitation is a Markush group, but the alternatives is not a closed grouping and thus persons skilled in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention (MPEP 2117(I) and MPEP 2111.03(I)); therefore, this limitation is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as “wherein the cutting device is a laser, a cutting wire and/or a cutting knife.”
Claims 2-5, 10-17 and 19-21 are indefinite because of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "wherein the cutting device comprises a laser and/or a cutting wire" in lines 8-9. This limitation is a Markush group, but the alternatives is not a closed grouping and thus persons skilled in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention (MPEP 2117(I) and MPEP 2111.03(I)); therefore, this limitation is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is being interpreted as “wherein the cutting device is a laser and/or a cutting wire.”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 10-13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aidun (US 7745204) in view of Yamada et al. (WO2021193427A1) (References herein made with respect to English equivalent found at US 20230083943 A1), and further in view of Naccarato et al.(US 6617146 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Aidun teaches a preanalytic system, comprising
a swab gripper (sample loading system 139 and z-translator arm) configured to grip a rod of a swab (119) (Fig. 1A), and
a cutting device (cutting unit 116)(col. 3, ln. 67 - col. 4 ln. 2) configured to cut the rod of the swab, and wherein the cutting device comprises a laser
Aidun teaches a biological sample aliquoting system for handing biological samples (abstract). Aidun teaches the system cuts a swab (biological collection device 119) containing a biological sample, and places a portion of the biological sample into a specific location in a multi-well plate (Abstract, Fig. 1A and col. 3, ln. 66 - col. 4, ln. 6). Aidun teaches the sample is collected at a collection point and then being transport for further processing and testing (col. 3, lns 24-39). Aidun teaches sample swab is loaded to the sample loading system 119 held by the z-translator arm, and the loading system can be of various types, for example a fully automated robotic sample loading system (col 4. lns. 40-48), but Aidun does not explicitly teach where the sample swab is stored prior to being processed or tested, and the mechanism involves in retrieving sample swab and loading the sample swab to the sample loading system 119.
However, Yamada teaches a biological sample aliquoting system for handing biological samples. Yamada teaches the system cuts a swab containing a biological sample, and places a portion of the biological sample into a specific location in a multi-well plate. Yamada further teaches the biological sample is collected with a sample swab that is connected to the cap or a storing tube/laboratory sample container, and the after sample collection, the sample swab is stored and preserved in the storing tube/sample container (para. 0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sample swab (119) taught by Aidun with a sample swab that is connected to the cap of a laboratory sample container and also include the laboratory sample container as taught by Yamada (Yamada, para. 0002) because doing so would allow for the storing and preserving the collected biological sample (Yamada, para. 0002) prior to processing and/or testing with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
Modified Aidun teaches the sample is collected with the sample swab that is connected to the cap of the laboratory sample container, and after collection, the sample swab is stored in the laboratory sample container for storage and transport, but Aidun fails to the mechanism by which the swab is being taken out from the laboratory sample container and being loaded to the sample loading mechanism such that a portion of the swab and can be cut and stored in the multi-well plate. Consequently, Aidun fails to teach the preanalytic system, comprising a cap gripper comprising two or more gripper fingers configured to grip a cap of a laboratory sample container, wherein the cap is connected to a rod of a swab located within the laboratory sample container, wherein the cap gripper is further configured to release the cap from the laboratory sample container while the cap is gripped by the gripper fingers, and the cutting device configured to cut the rod of the swab when the cap is in a position released from the laboratory sample container while the cap is gripped by the gripper fingers, wherein the cutting device is rotatable, pivotable, or linearly moveable relative to the cap gripper, and wherein the gripper fingers are configured to grip the cap at an outer circumferential surface thereof (i) when the cap is released from the laboratory sample container and (ii) when the rod of the swab is cut.
However, Naccarato teaches an apparatus that provides a mechanism to uncap and remove a sample swab that is connected to the cap of a sample container (Figs. 4A and B). Naccarato further teaches the apparatus comprises a cap gripper (11) comprising two or more gripper fingers (66)(Fig. 2) configured to grip a cap of a laboratory sample container (Fig. 4A), wherein the cap is connected to a rod of a swab located within the laboratory sample container (Figs. 4A and 4B), wherein the cap gripper is further configured to release the cap from the laboratory sample container while the cap is gripped by the gripper fingers (Figs. 1C and 4A-4C and col. 6, lns. 50 and 59-65). More specifically, the gripper 66 (gripper fingers) of manipulating device 11 places the laboratory sample container in a holder (7 or 8) and then grasp and remove the cap of the laboratory sample container while the laboratory sample container is being held in the holder (Figs. 1C and 4A and 4B, col. 6, lns. 44-45, 50-52 and 59-65, col. 4, lns. 48-55, claim 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sample loading system 139 and the z-translation arm taught by Aidun with the manipulating device 11 with gripper 66 and holder (7 or 8) as taught by Naccarato because doing so provides a mechanism to uncap and remove the sample swab that is connected to the cap of the laboratory sample container (Naccarato, Fig. 4A and 4B, col. 4, lns. 48-55) with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143)(I)(G).
The teachings of modified Aidun would yield the preanalytic system comprises a cap gripper (11 of Naccarato) comprising two or more gripper fingers (66 of Naccarato)(Fig. 2) configured to grip a cap of a laboratory sample container (Naccarato , Fig. 4A), wherein the cap is connected to a rod of a swab located within the laboratory sample container (Naccarato, Fig. 4A and 4B), wherein the cap gripper is further configured to release the cap from the laboratory sample container while the cap is gripped by the gripper fingers (Naccarato, Figs. 4A-4C and 7 and col. 6, lns. 50 and 59-65), and
a cutting device (116 of Aidun) configured to cut the rod of the swab when the cap is in a position released from the laboratory sample container while the cap is gripped by the gripper fingers (in modified Aidun, Naccarato’s gripper 66 instead of Aidun’s 139 in Fig. 1A of Aidun is gripping the cap-swab), wherein the cutting device (116 of Aidun) is rotatable, pivotable, or linearly moveable relative to the cap gripper (manipulating device 11 of Naccarato) (Aidun, col. 4 lns. 13-16 and Naccarato, Fig. 1C and 4A-4B teach in modified Aidun, manipulator 11 positions the swab for laser cutting, and thus the manipulator 11 linearly moves relatively to the cutting unit 116, and thus, cutting unit 116 is linearly moveable relative manipulator 11), and wherein the cutting device comprises a laser (col. 3, ln. 67 - col. 4 ln. 2, a laser),
wherein the gripper fingers are configured to grip the cap at an outer circumferential surface thereof (i) when the cap is released from the laboratory sample container (Naccarato, Figs. 1C and 4A and B) and
(ii) when the rod of the swab is cut (in modified Aidun, Naccarato’s gripper 66 instead of Aidun’s 139 in Fig. 1A is gripping the cap-swab).
Regarding claim 2, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Aidun further teaches wherein the cap gripper (11 of Naccarato) is further configured to release the cap from the laboratory sample container with the swab remaining located within the laboratory sample container (interpreted as a functional limitation. The cap and the laboratory sample container are not positively recited. Naccarato, Fig. 4B, manipulating device 11 is structurally capable of performing the limitation).
Regarding claim 3, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Aidun further teaches wherein the cutting device (116) is configured to cut the rod of the swab such that the swab together with the cut rod remains located within the laboratory sample container (interpreted as functional limitation. The swab and the laboratory sample container are not positively recited. Cutting unit 116 is structurally capable of cutting the rod of the swab such that the swab and the cut rod located within the container when the container is positioned appropriately).
Regarding claim 4, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Aidun further wherein the laboratory sample container extends along a longitudinal direction, wherein the cap gripper (Naccarato, 11) is moveable in a direction parallel to the longitudinal direction (Naccarato, Fig. 4B, col. 6, lns. 44-45, 50-52).
Regarding claim 5, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 4. Modified Aidun further teaches wherein the cap gripper (Naccarato, 11) is moveable in the direction parallel to the longitudinal direction with the cap gripped so as to lift the cap from the laboratory sample container (Naccarato, Figs. 1C and 4A and 4B, col. 6, lns. 44-45, 50-52).
Regarding claim 10, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. With regards to the limitation “wherein the cutting knife is a heated cutting knife,” this invention is being interpreted with the alternative of the cutting device being a laser, and this limitation involving a cutting knife does not apply.
Regarding claim 11, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 10. With regards to the limitation “wherein the heated cutting knife is configured to be heated to 60 degrees Celsius or above,” this invention is being interpreted with the alternative of the cutting device being a laser, and this limitation involving a cutting knife does not apply.
Regarding claim 12, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 10. With regards to the limitation “wherein the heated cutting knife is configured to be heated to between 60 and 70 degrees Celsius, or between 65 and 85 degrees Celsius,“ this invention is being interpreted with the alternative of the cutting device being a laser, and this limitation involving a cutting knife does not apply..
Regarding claim 13, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Modified Aidun further comprising a container holder (Naccarato, holder 7 or 8)(see claim 1) configured to hold the laboratory sample container.
Regarding claim 21, Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1. Aidun further teaches the cutting device comprises a laser and/or a cutting wire (col. 3, ln. 67 - col. 4 ln. 2, a laser).
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aidun (US 7745204) in view of Yamada et al. (WO2021193427A1) (References herein made with respect to English equivalent found at US 20230083943 A1), further in view of Naccarato et al. (US 6617146 B1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lapham et al. (US 20170045542 A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Aidun teaches storage of biological swab samples that would further undergo analysis (col. 1, lns. 21-30). Aidun focuses on the storage method and doesn’t teach additional parts of a processing system. Therefore, Aidun fails to teach a dispensing device configured to dispense an inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the laboratory sample container.
However, Lapham teaches a dispensing device (paragraphs 0016 and 0088, liquid dispensing module that connects to a pumping system comprises a peristaltic pump) configured to dispense an inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid (paragraph 0064) into the laboratory sample container (paragraph 0016). The dispensing device is a part of an integrated modular liquid handling system that can be integrated with other systems to perform multiple steps of an assay or other workflow for sample processing in a very compact integrated device, including multiple functionalities in less space, and in a way that is faster, more cost-efficient, and produces less waste (paragraphs 0003-0005 and 0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by modified Aidun to have an integrated modular liquid handling system comprises the dispensing device in order to have a space-, time- and cost-efficient as well as waste-reducing way of processing medical swab samples with a reasonable expectation of success (Lapham, paragraphs 0003-0005 and 0059) (MPEP 2143(I)(G)).
The teachings of modified Aidun would yield the preanalytic system further comprising a dispensing device (Lapham’s dispensing device) configured to dispense an inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the laboratory sample container (interpreted as a functional limitation. Para. 0016 and 0064, Lapham’s dispensing device is structurally capable of dispensing inactivation/lysis fluid into the laboratory sample container).
Regarding claim 15, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 14. Modified Aidun further teaches the dispensing device is configured to dispense a predetermined amount of the inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the laboratory sample container (Lapham, paragraph 0016).
Regarding claim 16, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 15. Modified Aidun further teaches the dispensing device comprises a pump, configured to pump the predetermined amount of the inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the laboratory sample container (Lapham, paragraphs 0016 and 0088, pumping system).
Regarding claim 17, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 16. Modified Aidun teaches the pump is a roller pump (Lapham, paragraph 0088, peristaltic pump).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aidun (US 7745204) in view of Yamada et al. (WO2021193427A1) (References herein made with respect to English equivalent found at US 20230083943 A1), further in view of Naccarato et al. (US 6617146 B1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Robinson et al. (US 20100291669 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Modified Aidun teaches the use of laboratory sample containers, but Aidun fails to teach a sterilizing device configured to sterilize the laboratory sample container.
However, Robinson teaches a sterilizing device (paragraph 0405, UV light source) configured to sterilize the laboratory sample container (paragraph 0405). Robinson also teaches there is a chance that the sample may contain hazardous material. Robinson discloses often a small drop of the specimen sample, such as blood, may be left on the surface of the stopper, and it is desirable to sterilize this surface before sampling and processing to avoid contamination of specimen container 500 with airborne or surface microbes (paragraph 0403).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the preanalytic system disclosed by modified Aidun to have a sterilizing device of Robinson in order to avoid contamination of the sample container with airborne or surface microbes with a reasonable expectation of success (paragraph 0403) (MPEP 2143(I)(G)).
Regarding claim 20, modified Aidun teaches all of the elements of the current invention as stated above with respect to claim 19. Modified Aidun further teaches the sterilizing device comprises an UV light source (Robinson, paragraph 0405).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5 , filed 02/26/2026, with respect to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant does not acquiesce to any assertion made by the Office Action in support of the interpretation of the aforementioned claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Since the argument does not provide any supposed errors in any previous Office Actions of the instant , "dispensing device configured to dispense an inactivation fluid and/or lysis fluid into the laboratory sample container" in claim 14; and "sterilizing device configured to sterilize the laboratory sample container" in claim 19 are still interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as states above.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-10 , filed 02/26/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejections are made in view of Aidun (US 7745204), Yamada et al. (WO2021193427A1), Naccarato (US 6617146 B1), Lapham et al. (US 20170045542 A1), and Robinson et al. (US 20100291669 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY CHIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1054. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 571-270-7698. 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.
/M.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights