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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/24/2062 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on June 24th , 2026. Claims 4-10, 20 and 23 are withdrawn as such claims 1-3, 11-19, 21, 22, and 24-28 are pending consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 3-4, it is recommended to change “a kneepad, arranged to cover a knee of a human user so as to hold the knee in the kneepad to hold said kneepad supported on the knee and to hold the knee in the kneepad” to “ a kneepad[[,]] arranged to cover a knee of a human user so as to hold the knee in the kneepad and to hold said kneepad supported on the knee ”
Claim 1, line 5, it is recommended to change “said kneepad being arranged” to “said kneepad is configured to be arranged”
Claim 1, line 6, it is recommended to change “the kneepad being arranged” to “the kneepad is configured to be arranged”
Claim 1, line 7, it is recommended to change “to mold to the shape of a knee, to prevent the knee” to “to mold to the to she shape of a knee and to prevent the knee
Claim 1, line 10, it is recommended to change “said mobilizing force putting pressure” to “said mobilizing force configured to put pressure”
Claim 1, lines 12-13, it is recommended to change “so that when the bearing surface supports the user’s pelvis, the mobilizing force is directed towards the user’s pelvis” to “so that the bearing surface is configured to support the user’s pelvis and the mobilizing force is directed towards the user’s pelvis”
Claim 1, line 17, it is recommended to change “, so that the mobilizing force is greater than 30 kg” to “where the mobilizing force is greater than 30 kg”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding “means for increasing the mobilizing force from the kneepad to the bearing surface” in claim 1 (and claims 11-12.
Uses the term “means”
The functional language that modified the “means” is that it increases the mobilizing force from the kneepad to the bearing surface
“means” in not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
For purposes of examination, the means for increasing the mobilizing force is being interpreted as pivoting the kneepad about the pivot pin or any other suitable alternative for increasing the mobilizing force as described in the specification and drawings (such as a grip element, restoring means, step attached to a kneepad, weight, etc.).
Regarding the ”means arranged to constrain the relative movement of the knee/kneepad” in claims 2-3,
(A) Uses the term “means”
(B) The functional language that modifies the “means” is “arranged to constrain the relative movement of the knee/kneepad”
(C) “means” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed
functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
For purposes of examination, the means are straps which are arranged to pull the kneepad as described in the specification and drawings.
Regarding the ”at least one linking element” in claim 13 (and claim 17),
(A) Uses the term “element” which is a generic placeholder for means
(B) The functional language that modifies the “element” is the element linking/connecting the kneepad to the bearing surface
(C) “at least one linking element” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed
functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
For purposes of examination, the at least one linking element is at least one strap or rod as described in the specification and drawings.
Regarding the ”an element attached to a bearing surface” in claim 13 (and claim 17),
(A) Uses the term “element” which is a generic placeholder for means
(B) The functional language that modifies the “element” is “attached to the bearing surface”
(C) “element” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed
functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
For purposes of examination, the element is a structure that blocks lateral movement of the leg as shown in Fig. 9 of the drawings.
Regarding the ”an element attached to a kneepad” in claim 13 (and claim 17),
(A) Uses the term “element” which is a generic placeholder for means
(B) The functional language that modifies the “element” is “attached to the kneepad”
(C) “element” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed
functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
For purposes of examination, the element is a connector making it possible to hook the kneepad up the at least one linking elements (straps) as described in the specification.
Regarding the “the restoring means” in claims 15 and 28
(A) Uses the term “restoring means” which is a generic placeholder for means
(B) The functional language in claim 15 that modifies the “means” is “restoring” as it is a means for restoring. In claim 28 the function language that modifies the “means” is “arranged to have an influence on the mobilizing force”
(C) “restoring means” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed
functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
For purpose of examination, the restoring means is a spring which are as described in the specification and drawings.
Regarding the “means for replacing” in claim 16,
(A) Uses the term “means”
(B) The functional language that modifies the “means” is “for replacing the at least one restoring means”
(C) “means” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed
functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
For purpose of examination, means for replacing is being interpreted as set of several interchangeable springs as described in the specification and drawings.
Regarding the “means for varying” in claim 16,
(A) Uses the term “means”
(B) The functional language that modifies the “means” is “for varying the rigidity of the at least one restoring means”
(C) “means” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed
functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
For purpose of examination, means for varying is being interpreted as set of several interchangeable springs and/or a spring with adjustable force described in the specification and drawings.
Regarding the “means arranged to modify a lever arm” in claim 22
(A) Uses the term “means”
(B) The functional language that modifies the “means” is “arranged to modify a lever arm”
(C) “means” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed
functions, therefore 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
For purpose of examination, the means are additional straps which are as described in the specification and drawings.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is:
the means for increasing the mobilizing force in claim 19 as it further describes the pivoting the kneepad about the pivot pin as the means for increasing the mobilizing force
at least one linking element in claim 14 as it further specifies that the at least one linking element comprises at least one strap or a rod
at least one linking element in claim 21 as it further specifies that the at least one linking elements comprises two straps
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-3,11-19, 21, 22, and 24-28 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 1, the limitation “said mobilizing force putting pressure on the knee and being directed towards a bearing surface” is unclear as there is uncertainty whether the claim is stating that the mobilizing force is being directed towards a bearing surface or the knee is being directed towards a bearing surface. For purposes of examination, said mobilizing force is being interpreted as being directed towards a bearing surface. It is recommended to change “said mobilizing force putting pressure on the knee and being directed towards a bearing surface” to “said mobilizing force configured to put pressure on the knee; where said mobilizing force is directed towards a bearing surface”.
Claims 2, 3, 11-19, 21, 22, and 24-28 are also rejected due to being dependent off of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 06/24/2026, with respect to the newly amended limitation of claim 1 overcoming the 103 rejections made in view of current prior art of record have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 11-19, 21, 22, and 24-28 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 11-19, 21, 22, and 24-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim the subject matter of independent claim 1 the closest identified prior at of record are as follows:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Koenig (US 20180303696) in view of Ewing (US 20100249672).
In particular, Koenig discloses
a device for mobilizing the human osteo-musculotendinous system (figs. 3-16) a rehabilitation mechanism for bedridden patients to move the bones joints, muscles, and tendons; such as the knee joint; [0001], [0004], and [0028]-[0029), comprising:
- a kneepad, arranged to cover a knee of a human user so as to hold the knee in the kneepad to hold said kneepad supported on the knee and to hold the knee in the kneepad (figs. 4-7; knee orthosis 51 is placed on the knee and secured with straps 43, knee orthosis 51 with connection element 52 receives knee joint of the patient; [0032] and [0073]),
and said kneepad being arranged to exert a mobilizing force on the knee covered by the kneepad (figs. 4-7; extension arm 53 with mechanical device 61 exerts an ideal force N into the knee orthosis 51; [0085] and [0094]), the kneepad being arranged, at least during the exertion of a mobilizing force (ideal force is chosen by therapist and may be different patient to patient; [0085]) , to mold to the shape of a knee, to prevent the knee from slipping out of the kneepad perpendicularly to the direction of the mobilizing force when the kneepad is in contact with the knee and covers the knee (figs. 3-16; knee orthosis 51 is held onto knee with straps 43, patient can slip on account of force N or gravity due to positioning of the mattress, however, control circuit can adjust eccentrics 63, 64 simultaneously with rehabilitation movement to position proximal portion 532 of extension arm 53 correctly; [0085], [0108]-[0110]; therefore, keeping the knee orthosis molded to the knee at a contact point);
* said mobilizing force putting pressure on the knee and being directed towards a bearing surface (see figs. 3-4; arrow pointing downward with N shows direction of mobilizing force towards the mattress 20 of the bed 10; [0070] and [0085]) arranged to support the user's pelvis (see figs. 1-7, patient 90 lies on mattress 20 of the bed 10, in other words bed supports user’s pelvis) to generate a compression of the pelvis (figs. 4-16; knee 93 rotates about the hip joint; [0085], [0089], [0105]; rotation around hip joint would cause a compression of the hip joint);
* said mobilizing force having a direction that leads from the kneepad to the bearing surface (see figs. 3-4; arrow pointing downward with N shows direction of mobilizing force); and
- means for increasing the mobilizing force from the kneepad to the bearing surface supporting the user's pelvis (figs. 3-5; knee module 50 with extension arm 53 and mechanical device 61 exerts an ideal force N into the knee orthosis 51, force can be adjusted/increased using eccentrics 63, 64; [0085] and [0094]), so that the mobilizing force is greater than 30 kg,
the mobilizing force having a direction parallel to a straight line perpendicular to the bearing surface arranged to support the user's pelvis (figs. 3-4“Ideal angles could be defined, for example, such that a force N is always introduced perpendicularly with respect to the mattress 20, or tangentially with respect to the circular motion (or the trajectories T) which the knee 93 describes about the hip rotation point”; [0085]) plus or minus 30° (figs. 4-5; adjustment mechanism 70 adjusts bed 10 from a horizontal position to a vertical position and bed/mattress frame 11, 21 are designed to be adjustable in height and/or inclination; [0070], [0078]; therefore, the adjustment mechanism 70 is capable of adjusting the bed 10/patient 90 plus 30° above horizontal).
Koenig does not disclose the mobilizing force being directed towards the user’s pelvis and is silent as to the exertion of a mobilizing force beyond a threshold of 20 kg and the mobilizing force being greater than 30 kg.
Ewing discloses an analogues rehabilitation mechanism for the knee with
the exertion of a mobilizing force beyond a threshold of 20 kg (figs. 1-5; exercising the joint 40 “involving multiple cycles using a force F of about 70 to 80 pounds (lbs) and flexing a joint 40 such as a knee, to an angle of around 90° during each cycle”; [0060], 70-80 lbs is equal to about 31.75-36.29 kg)
and means for increasing the mobilizing force from the kneepad to the bearing surface, so that the mobilizing force is greater than 30 kg (figs. 1-5; exercising the joint 40 with knee engagement portion 26 using a force F of about 70 to 80 pounds (lbs) and flexing a joint 40 such as a knee, to an angle of around 90° during each cycle”; [0046] and [0060]; 70-80 lbs is equal to about 31.75-36.29 kg).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ideal force of Koenig to be a force of about 70 to 80 lbs as disclosed in Ewing to exercise the knee with a force that is beneficial to attaining a full range of motion after a knee surgery (Ewing: [0060]).
However, Koenig and Ewing fail to teach, disclose, or render obvious
“the mobilizing force is directed towards the user’s pelvis” in addition to other limitations.
Claims 2, 3, 11-19, 21, 22, and 24-28 would also be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112b rejections.
Alternatively, regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Kang (WO 9911214) and its translation (EspaceNet Translation Kang).
In particular, Kang discloses
a device for mobilizing the human osteo-musculotendinous system (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; force-applying fixing device 10 and 30; Page 16, Paragraph 3, Lines 1-3; Page 16, Paragraph 4, Lines 4-5; Page 17, Paragraph 3, Lines 1-3), comprising:
a kneepad (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; sheath 301, 302 with knee brace; Page 17, Paragraph 2, Lines 5-6; Page 17, Paragraph 3, Lines 5-6; Pa21 Paragraph 1, Line 3-6), arranged to cover a knee of a human user so as to hold the knee in the kneepad (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; sheath 301, 302 or attachment limb device 70; Page 17, Paragraph 2, Lines 5-6; Page 17, Paragraph 3, Lines 5-6; Page 21, Paragraph 1, Line 3-6; the two sheaths hold the knee), and
said kneepad (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; sheath 301, 302 with knee brace; Page 17, Paragraph 2, Lines 5-6; Page 17, Paragraph 3, Lines 5-6; Page 21, Paragraph 1, Line 3-6) being arranged to exert a mobilizing force (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; force applying device 20, 40,; Page 18, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-4) on the knee (Page 16, Paragraph 4, Lines 1-2 and Paragraph 5, Lines 1-2; applies pulling/tension force to the knee) covered by the kneepad (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; sheath 301, 302 with knee brace; Page 17, Paragraph 2, Lines 5-6; Page 17, Paragraph 3, Lines 5-6; Page 21, Paragraph 1, Line 3-6);
the kneepad (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; sheath 301, 302 with knee brace; Page 17, Paragraph 2, Lines 5-6; Page 17, Paragraph 3, Lines 5-6; Pa21 Paragraph 1, Line 3-6) arranged to mold to the shape of a knee, to prevent the knee from slipping out of the kneepad perpendicularly to the direction of the mobilizing force when the kneepad is in contact with the knee and covers the knee (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; sheath 301, 302 or attachment limb device 70; Page 17, Paragraph 2, Lines 5-6; Page 17, Paragraph 3, Lines 5-6; Page 21, Paragraph 1, Line 3-6; the two sheaths hold the knee and has an adjusting force 61 and pulling force of force applying device 20; Page 21, Paragraph 2, Lines 1-7; the adjusting force 61 and force applying device 20 are used with the device during rehabilitation/exercise of the knee; therefore, it is capable of tightening the force line to keep the sheaths in place)
said mobilizing force (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; force applying device 20, 40, 90; Page 18, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-4; Page 21, Paragraph 3, Lines 1-3) putting pressure on the knee (Page 16, Paragraph 4, Lines 1-2 and Paragraph 5, Lines 1-2; applies pulling/tension force to the knee; Page 21, Paragraph 2, Lines 1-7) and being directed towards a bearing surface (Figs. 4 and 5; pulling force of force applying device 20 is being directed toward the chair/stool like structure that the user is sitting on) arranged to support the user’s pelvis (Figs. 4 and 5, pelvis of the user is sitting on a chair/stool/surface); the mobilizing force is directed towards the user’s pelvis (see Figs. 4 and 5; pulling force of force applying device 20 is being directed toward the chair/stool like structure that the user is sitting on and the user’s pelvis)
said mobilizing force (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; force applying device 20, 40, 90; Page 18, Paragraph 1, Lines 1-4; Page 21, Paragraph 3, Lines 1-3) having a direction that leads from the kneepad (Page 16, Paragraph 4, Lines 1-2 and Paragraph 5, Lines 1-2; applies pulling/tension force to the knee; Page 21, Paragraph 2, Lines 1-7) to the bearing surface (Figs. 4 and 5; pulling force of force applying device 20 is being directed toward the chair/stool like structure that the user is sitting on); and
means (Figs. 2a-e, 4, and 5; force gauge 60 and adjusting force 61; Page 18, Paragraph 2, Lines 1-3) for increasing the mobilizing force from the kneepad to the bearing surface support the user’s pelvis (Page 18, Paragraph 2, Lines 1-3); and
the bearing surface arranged to support the user’s pelvis plus or minus 30° (see figs. 8a-8c which has an adjustable fixed support surface 91 which has an adjustable height and angle but is fixed during use, Page 24, paragraphs 2 and 3 and page 25, paragraph 1).
However, Kang fails to teach, disclose, or render obvious
“the kneepad arranged, at least during the exertion of a mobilizing force beyond a threshold of 20kg, to mold to the shape of a knee, to prevent the knee from slipping out of the kneepad perpendicularly to the direction of the mobilizing force when the kneepad is in contact with the knee and covers the knee; and the mobilizing force is greater than 30 kg, the mobilizing force having a direction parallel to a straight line perpendicular to the bearing surface arranged to support the user’s pelvis plus or minus 30°” in addition to other limitations.
Claims 2, 3, 11-19, 21, 22, and 24-28 would also be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112b rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eddy (US 20180311526) – A mobility enhancement system that has a knee support that extends around the knee providing force with a cable mechanism
Rapp (US 20140057766) – An exercise apparatus which targets the lower region of the abdominal muscles through a user laying on a bench and using footpads connected to a surface allowing increased resistance when pulling/pivoting the users legs, it does not disclose using kneepads
Kanicki (US 3659846) – A elastic type exercising device for exercising the knee, it does not disclose a force directed towards the user’s pelvis
Branch (US 20200155077) – An apparatus for manipulation and evaluation of a joint which has knee pads, it does not disclose a force directed towards the user’s pelvis
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY REYES RUSSELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4567. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930am -6pm.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached at (571) 270-7410. 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.
/S.R.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRANDY S LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights