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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadiou (US 3685854 A) in view of Matsuzawa et al. (US 11097641 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Cadiou discloses a structure (Cadiou, Fig. 2-3) for an automotive vehicle (Cadiou, Fig. 2), defining and integrating a driver seat (Cadiou, 20 in Fig. 2) and at least one passenger seat (Cadiou, 23 in Fig. 2-3; integrating in that they together formed the vehicle seat structure and are connected together), characterized in that the driver seat and the at least one passenger seat are staggered and slotted with each other in three dimensions (Cadiou, Fig. 2-3, overlapped but not aligned in the three dimensions of width, length, and height).
Examiner notes that “slotted” is interpreted as overlapped in view of Applicant’s definition in paragraph 15 of the specification.
Cadiou fails to disclose in that the structure comprises frameworks defining the seats, and these frameworks comprise lateral and transverse panels.
Matsuzawa teaches frameworks (Matsuzawa, Fig. 1) defining the seats, and these frameworks comprise lateral and transverse panels (Matsuzawa, Fig. 2A, lateral panels 26B and 22B; transverse panels 21 and others between the lateral panels 26B and 22B; Fig. 1 also shows footrest panel 18).
Matsuzawa is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Cadiou.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Cadiou to incorporate the teachings of Matsuzawa with a reasonable expectation of success and replace the frameworks of Cadiou with the frameworks of Matsuzawa. Doing so provides additional comfort to the passengers through the headrests and footrests.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cadiou in view of Matsuzawa teaches the structure according to claim 1, characterized in that the driver seat is raised (Cadiou, Fig. 2) with respect to the at least one passenger seat.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cadiou in view of Matsuzawa teaches the structure according to claim 1, characterized in that the structure defines two passenger seats (Cadiou, 21 and 23 in Fig. 3) staggered and slotted with respect to the driver seat in the three dimensions (Cadiou, Fig. 2-3 and Col. 4 lines 25-29, overlapped but not aligned in the three dimensions).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cadiou in view of Matsuzawa teaches the structure according to claim 1, the lateral and transverse panels (Matsuzawa, Fig. 2A, lateral panels 26B and 22B; transverse panels 21 and others between the lateral panels 26B and 22B; Fig. 1 also shows footrest panel 18) delimiting: a footrest area; a seating area; a back rest area; and a head rest area (Matsuzawa, see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
377
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Annotated Fig. 1 from Matsuzawa
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cadiou in view of Matsuzawa as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nilson (US 0760236 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cadiou in view of Matsuzawa teaches the structure according to claim 3, characterized in that the two passenger seats are aligned longitudinally (Cadiou, Fig. 3, 21 and 23 are on the same longitudinal position).
The combination of Cadiou in view of Matsuzawa fails to teach aligned in height.
Nilson teaches aligned in height (Nilson, Fig. 2 and Col. 2 lines 46-47, seats can have same height for symmetry).
Nilson is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Cadiou in view of Matsuzawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Cadiou in view of Matsuzawa to incorporate the teachings of Nilson with a reasonable expectation of success and have the seats aligned in height. Doing so provides symmetrical structure to the vehicle such that the center of gravity is at the center of the vehicle without creating undesired moment due to asymmetrical distribution of weights. Also allows two passengers sitting on the two seats to communicate conveniently due to being at the same level.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergquist et al. (WO 0041911 A1) in view of Matsuzawa.
Regarding claim 1, Bergquist discloses a structure (Bergquist, Fig. 9) for an automotive vehicle (Bergquist, 1 in Fig. 9), defining and integrating a driver seat (Bergquist, 2 in Fig. 9) and at least one passenger seat (Bergquist, 5 in Fig. 9; integrating in that they together formed the vehicle seat structure and are connected together), characterized in that the driver seat and the at least one passenger seat are staggered and slotted with each other in three dimensions (Bergquist, Fig. 9, overlapped but not aligned in the three dimensions of width, length, and height; staggered and slotted in height due to the seat being folded down).
Examiner notes that “slotted” is interpreted as overlapped in view of Applicant’s definition in paragraph 15 of the specification.
Bergquist fails to disclose in that the structure comprises frameworks defining the seats, and these frameworks comprise lateral and transverse panels.
Matsuzawa teaches frameworks (Matsuzawa, Fig. 1) defining the seats, and these frameworks comprise lateral and transverse panels (Matsuzawa, Fig. 2A, lateral panels 26B and 22B; transverse panels 21 and others between the lateral panels 26B and 22B; Fig. 1 also shows footrest panel 18).
Matsuzawa is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Bergquist.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Bergquist to incorporate the teachings of Matsuzawa with a reasonable expectation of success and replace the frameworks of Cadiou with the frameworks of Matsuzawa. Doing so provides additional comfort to the passengers through the headrests and footrests.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa teaches an automotive vehicle (Bergquist, vehicle of Fig. 1) comprising a structure according to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nilson (US 0760236 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa teaches the structure according to claim 1, characterized in that the structure defines three passenger seats (Bergquist, 3-5 in Fig. 9), of which: a first passenger seat (Bergquist, 3 in Fig. 9) is aligned longitudinally (Bergquist, Fig. 9) with respect to the driver seat; a second passenger seat (Bergquist, 5 in Fig. 9) and a third passenger seat (Bergquist, 4 in Fig. 9) are staggered with respect to the driver seat (Bergquist, Fig. 9) and to the first passenger seat in the three dimensions (Bergquist, Fig. 9, in width, length, and height directions), the second and third passenger seats are aligned with each other longitudinally (Bergquist, Fig. 9, seats 4 and 5 are aligned), and the second and third passenger seats are slotted in respect of the driver seat and the first passenger seat respectively (Bergquist, Fig. 9, seat 5 is slotted with respect to driver’s seat 2 and seat 4 is slotted with respect to passenger seat 3).
The combination of Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa fails to teach the first passenger seat is aligned in height with the driver seat, and the second and third passenger seats are aligned with each other in height.
Nilson teaches aligned in height (Nilson, Fig. 2 and Col. 2 lines 46-47, seats can have same height for symmetry on each row).
Nilson is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa to incorporate the teachings of Nilson with a reasonable expectation of success and have the seats aligned in height in each row. Doing so provides symmetrical structure to the vehicle such that the center of gravity is at the center of the vehicle without creating undesired moment due to asymmetrical distribution of weights. Also allows two passengers sitting on the two seats to communicate conveniently due to being at the same level.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Guillez (FR 2936485 A1), hereinafter Guillez ‘485.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa teaches the vehicle according to claim 10, but fails to teach powered wheels
Guillez ‘485 teaches powered wheels (Guillez ‘485, second paragraph on page 2 of machine translation, wheels can be electrically or thermally powered).
Guillez ‘485 is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa to incorporate the teachings of Guillez ‘485 with a reasonable expectation of success and have powered wheels. Doing so provides power to the wheels such that a driver and easily maneuver the vehicle.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa and Guillez ‘485 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Palmer (US 0844615 A).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa and Guillez ‘485 teaches vehicle according to claim 11, but fails to teach the wheels located on one side of the vehicle are staggered longitudinally with respect to the wheels located on another side of the vehicle.
Palmer teaches the wheels located on one side of the vehicle are staggered longitudinally with respect to the wheels located on another side of the vehicle (Palmer, Fig. 1, wheels on one side can be behind or in front of the wheels on the opposite side).
Palmer is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle structure having wheels as Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa and Guillez ‘485.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Bergquist in view of Matsuzawa and Guillez ‘485 to incorporate the teachings of Palmer with a reasonable expectation of success and have the wheels staggered longitudinally. Doing so allows one wheel to hit an obstacle/bump first rather than two wheels at the same time, therefore reducing vibration and impact (Palmer, Col. 1 lines 14-33, obviating jars).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillez et al. (FR 2942751 A1), hereinafter Guillez ‘751, in view of Matsuzawa.
Regarding claim 1, Guillez ‘751 discloses a structure (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 8) for an automotive vehicle (Guillez ‘751, vehicle of Fig. 8), defining and integrating a driver seat (Guillez ‘751, 4 in Fig. 7, also shown in Fig. 1 as a driver’s seat) and at least one passenger seat (Guillez ‘751, one of the seats 5 in Fig. 7-8; integrating in that they together formed the vehicle seat structure and are connected together), characterized in that the driver seat and the at least one passenger seat are staggered and slotted with each other in three dimensions (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 7 and first paragraph on page 4 of machine translation, seat 5 in its dotted line advanced position is staggered below, behind, and outward of the driver’s seat and overlap or slotted with the driver’s seat in all three dimensions).
Examiner notes that “slotted” is interpreted as overlapped in view of Applicant’s definition in paragraph 15 of the specification.
Guillez ‘751 fails to disclose in that the structure comprises frameworks defining the seats, and these frameworks comprise lateral and transverse panels.
Matsuzawa teaches frameworks (Matsuzawa, Fig. 1) defining the seats, and these frameworks comprise lateral and transverse panels (Matsuzawa, Fig. 2A, lateral panels 26B and 22B; transverse panels 21 and others between the lateral panels 26B and 22B; Fig. 1 also shows footrest panel 18).
Matsuzawa is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Guillez ‘751.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Guillez ‘751 to incorporate the teachings of Matsuzawa with a reasonable expectation of success and replace the frameworks of Cadiou with the frameworks of Matsuzawa. Doing so provides additional comfort to the passengers through the headrests and footrests.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nilson (US 0760236 A) and Hayashi et al. (US 20190061450 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa teaches the structure according to claim 1, characterized in that the structure defines three passenger seats (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 8, three seats behind the front driver’s seat), of which: a first passenger seat (Guillez ‘751, 100 in Fig. 7-8) is staggered backwards (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 7-8, seat 100 is behind the front driver seat 4) with respect to the driver seat; a second passenger seat and a third passenger seat (Guillez ‘751, two seats 5 in Fig. 7-8), are staggered with respect to the driver seat in the three dimensions and to the first passenger seat in two dimensions (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 7-8, staggered in width and length directions with both driver seat and the first passenger seat; also staggered in height with respect to the driver seat in the advanced position as shown in dotted lines of Fig. 7 and first paragraph on page 4 of machine translation), the second and third passenger seats are staggered longitudinally (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 7-8, one of the seats 5 can slide forward of the other therefore making them staggered longitudinally), the first passenger seat and the second passenger seat being slotted into the driver seat (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 8 and 11, the first passenger seat 100 is slotted in width and height, and the second passenger seat which can be the right seat 5, slotted in all three dimensions) and the third passenger seat being slotted into the first passenger seat (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 7-8 and 11, slotted in all three dimensions; or slotted in both height and width in the dotted line advanced position).
The combination of Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa fails to teach the first passenger seat is aligned in height with respect to the driver seat; the second passenger seat and the third passenger seat are staggered with respect to the first passenger seat in height dimension; and the second and third passenger seats are aligned with each other in height.
Nilson teaches the second and third passenger seats are aligned with each other in height (Nilson, Fig. 2 and Col. 2 lines 46-47, seats can have same height for symmetry on each row).
Nilson is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa to incorporate the teachings of Nilson with a reasonable expectation of success and have the second and the third passenger seats aligned in height. Doing so provides symmetrical structure to the vehicle such that the center of gravity is at the center of the vehicle without creating undesired moment due to asymmetrical distribution of weights. Also allows two passengers sitting on the two seats to communicate conveniently due to being at the same level.
Hayashi teaches the first passenger seat is aligned in height with respect to the driver seat (Hayashi, paragraph 38, front seat and rear seat can have same height); the second passenger seat and the third passenger seat are staggered with respect to the first passenger seat in height dimension (after combination, since the second and the third passenger seats are taught by Guillez ‘751 to be below the front driver seat, now that the rear first passenger seat is same height as the front driver seat, the second and the third passenger seats will also be below the rear first passenger seat).
Hayashi is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa and Nilson.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa and Nilson to incorporate the teachings of Hayashi with a reasonable expectation of success and have the rear passenger seat align in height with the front driver seat such that the two side passenger seats are staggered in height with the driver seat and the rear passenger seat. Doing so provides the driver with adequate rear field of view ensuring driving safety due to the rear not being above the driver seat, also allows the rear seat to be above the second row side seats such that the occupant of the rear seat can have good visibility.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sailer et al. (US 20120235006 A1) and Miyahara et al. (US 20020011737 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa teaches the structure according to claim 1, characterized in that the structure defines three passenger seats (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 8, three seats behind the front driver’s seat), the driver seat and the three passenger seats being all staggered with each other in length (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 7-8, all four seats can be at different length locations since seat 5 is slidable), and in width except for the rear passenger (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 7-8, front driver seat 4 and the middle seats 5 are staggered in width with each other), the first passenger seat and the second passenger seat being slotted into the driver seat (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 7-8, seats 5 in the middle row slotted into the driver seat in width, height, and/or length), and the third passenger seat being slotted into the first passenger seat (Guillez ‘751, Fig. 7-8, third seat 100 in the rear slotted into the first passenger seat 5, which can be a right seat 5, in width, height, and/or length).
The combination of Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa fails to teach the driver seat and the three passenger seats being all staggered with each other in the three dimensions, particularly in width for the rear passenger seat 100 and in height.
Sailer teaches the driver seat and the three passenger seats being all staggered with each other in height (after combination, paragraph 59 of Sailer describes seats can have different heights).
Sailer is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa to incorporate the teachings of Sailer with a reasonable expectation of success and have different heights for the seats. Doing so provides different seat heights so that passengers of different physique can each find suitable seats.
Miyahara teaches the rear passenger seat can be staggered in width with other three seats (after combination, since Miyahara describes paragraph 12 that the seat can slide laterally in width; which allows staggering in width).
Miyahara is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa and Sailer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Guillez ‘751 in view of Matsuzawa and Sailer to incorporate the teachings of Miyahara with a reasonable expectation of success and the rear seat 100 slidable in width such that it is staggered in width with the other three seats. Doing so allows larger or wider cargo item to be placed next to the rear seat without sacrificing the rear seat’s seating function.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cadiou (US 3685854 A) in view of Kutscheid et al. (US 20190359100 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cadiou discloses a structure (Cadiou, Fig. 2-3) for an automotive vehicle (Cadiou, Fig. 2), defining and integrating a driver seat (Cadiou, 20 in Fig. 2) and at least one passenger seat (Cadiou, 23 in Fig. 2-3; integrating in that they together formed the vehicle seat structure and are connected together), characterized in that the driver seat and the at least one passenger seat are staggered and slotted with each other in three dimensions (Cadiou, Fig. 2-3, overlapped but not aligned in the three dimensions of width, length, and height).
Examiner notes that “slotted” is interpreted as overlapped in view of Applicant’s definition in paragraph 15 of the specification.
Cadiou fails to disclose in that the structure comprises frameworks defining the seats, and these frameworks comprise lateral and transverse panels.
Kutscheid teaches frameworks (Kutscheid, Fig. 5) defining the seats, and these frameworks comprise lateral and transverse panels (Kutscheid, see annotated Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
433
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Annotated Fig. 5 from Kutscheid
Kutscheid is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Cadiou.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Cadiou to incorporate the teachings of Kutscheid with a reasonable expectation of success and replace the frameworks of Cadiou with the frameworks of Matsuzawa. Doing so provides less assembly steps for the seat frame and allows lower weight to save operating cost of the vehicle (Kutscheid, paragraph 11).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cadiou in view of Kutscheid as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cabrie et al. (US 20070108811 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Cadiou in view of Kutscheid teaches the structure according to claim 1, but fails to teach pillars adapted to reach up to a roof of the automotive vehicle and resting against the back of each seat structure.
Cabrie teaches pillar (Cabrie, 15 in Fig. 2) adapted to reach up to a roof (Cabrie, 6 in Fig. 2, paragraph 33 describes the pillar 15 can fixed to different members including the roof) of the automotive vehicle and resting against the back of each seat structure (Cabrie, Fig. 1, behind seatback 9).
Cabrie is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of vehicle seats as Cadiou in view of Kutscheid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the structure as taught by Cadiou in view of Kutscheid to incorporate the teachings of Cabrie with a reasonable expectation of success and have pillar behind a seat. Doing so increases the rigidity of the structure of the vehicle (Cabrie, paragraph 32).
The combination of Cadiou in view of Kutscheid and Cabrie teaches the claimed invention except for pillar behind each seat. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the pillar taught by Cabrie apply to all the seats, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. Doing so reinforces the seat structures and increases the rigidity of the structure of the vehicle (Cabrie, paragraph 32).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the first paragraph on page 6 of Applicant’s replay, Applicant argues that the prior art teaches seats attached to vehicle chassis, whereas in the invention, the chassis itself directly integrates the seats. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Such limitation is not being claimed by Applicant and is therefore not required to be taught by the references applied. Nevertheless, Fig. 5 of previously cited reference Lambri et al. (US 8807262 B2) and Fig. 2 and 4 of previously cited reference Murray (US 5538309 A) teach structures where the seats integrating with a vehicle chassis structure.
In the first paragraph on page 7 of Applicant’s replay, Applicant argues that Guillez is different from the invention which has each seat delimited by transverse and longitudinal panels. Examiner agrees that Guillez no longer teaches the currently amended claim 1. However, since the amended limitations are taken from claim 9, previously applied reference Matsuzawa et al. (US 11097641 B2) is now employed for the rejection of claim 1. See page 2 of the instant Office Action for rejection details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wenwei Zhuo whose telephone number is (571)272-5564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8 a.m. - 4 p.m. EST.
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 571.270.5500. 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.
/WENWEI ZHUO/Examiner, Art Unit 3612