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
Amendment filed 5/1/2026 has been entered. Claim 3 is cancelled and pending claims 1, 2, 4-20 are addressed below.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendte (US 20160000003) in view of Bissell (US20200154630), in the alternative, further in view of Ridings (US 20210212308).
Applicant admits Surfynol® 420 includes at least “ethoxylated diacetylene-diols with 1 to 6 EO” (par. 51). Evidence of Surfynol® 420 being known prior to the application’s filing date is indicated in Onclin (US8426484).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 14, Wendte discloses a system and method of spraying a field with a vehicle (tractor; par. 19), the method comprising:
moving a vehicle over a plant within a field and spraying the plant with a liquid spray (via nozzles 26; par. 18; fig. 1);
wherein the liquid spray comprises at least one agrochemical active ingredient (par. 17: “water, aqueous-based liquids, or any other suitable liquid agricultural products or biologically-active agents”)
wherein the liquid spray is sprayed at a liquid spray rate such that the volume of liquid spray to be sprayed per area is less than 40 litres per hectare (par. 26 discloses ranges including flow rates less than 40, “the applicator 10 may be configured to meter the liquids at approximately 20 to 70, 30 to 60, or 45 to 55 liters per ha”, emphasis included; claim 18 of Wente discloses “rate of greater than approximately 4.5 liters per hectare”);
wherein the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle (26)
a) Wendte does not teach at least one adjuvant; wherein the at least one adjuvant is selected from mono-and diesters of sulfosuccinate metal salts with branched or linear alcohols comprising 1-10 carbon atoms, organosilicone ethoxylates, ethoxylated diacetylene-diols with 1 to 6 EO and/or alcohol ethoxylates; when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a Volume Median Diameter (VMD) of at least 170 microns.
Nonetheless, Bissell discloses a method comprises dispensing agricultural spray from a nozzle (Abstract), wherein the spray includes an agricultural ingredient (pesticide or fertilizer; par. 6) and at least one adjuvant. Bissell discloses the adjuvant can be various ethoxylated alcohol (par. 51-52, 58) to aid distribution. The spray is produced via a nozzle of choice that can produce droplets with VMD in the range of 50 microns to 622 microns (various ranges of VMD disclosed at end of paragraph 72, including “a VMD of approximately 177-218 μm”). Bissell’s nozzle sprays liquid, and understood to be “hydraulic nozzle”.
While Bissell does not explicitly mention “ethoxylated diacetylene-diols with 1 to 6 EO”, applicant’s disclosure admits in paragraph 51 that this adjuvant/surfactant is well known in the art via the trademark Surfynol ® 420, filed before the effective filing date:
PNG
media_image1.png
71
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Onclin (US8426484) is cited to show that Surfynol 420 is known before the effective filing date of the current application (col. 4, ln 14-17).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wendte to incorporate the teachings of Bissell and applicant’s admitted prior art to provide at least one adjuvant; wherein the at least one adjuvant that is ethoxylated diacetylene-diols with 1 to 6 EO, when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a Volume Median Diameter (VMD) of at least 170 microns. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating droplet formation for the desired distribution (See Bissell, paragraph 6).
It is noted that the claim reciting “wherein the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle and/or an atomizing disc” (emphasis included) has been addressed above to include only the “hydraulic nozzle”, according to claim interpretation of “a hydraulic nozzle or an atomizing disc”. Wendte in view of Bissell addressed the hydraulic nozzle above and the claim scope is met.
However, additional teaching of “the atomizing disc” is further addressed in alternative combination, Wendte in view of Bissell, further in view of Ridings, presented below:
b) Further regarding claim 1, Wendte does not teach an atomizing disc, wherein when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a VMD of at least 120 microns.
Ridings discloses a comparable agricultural sprayer having a nozzle 24 with atomizing disc blades 56 (fig. 4) to produce the desired VMD based on rotational speed (par. 43), which can be in the range of 123-139 µm (par. 45).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wendte to incorporate the teachings of Ridings to utilize an atomizing disc, wherein when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a VMD of at least 120 microns. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating droplet size for the best result and effective deposition (see paragraph 4-6).
Regarding claim 4, Wendte, as modified above, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a Volume Median Diameter (VMD) of at least 200 microns (see Bissell par. 72: “177-218µm,…218-349 µm”).
Regarding claim 5, Wendte, as modified above, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a VMD of at least 135 microns (Ridings, par. 45: “123-139 µm”).
Regarding claim 6, Wendte, as modified above, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzles the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a VMD that does not exceed 400 microns (see Bissell par. 72: “177-218µm,…218-349 µm”); and
wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a VMD that does not exceed 350 microns (Ridings, par. 45: “123-139 µm”; par. 48: “80 to 190 microns”).
Regarding claim 7, Wendte, as modified above, teaches when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets μm”);
wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets
While the references do not explicitly teach the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a DV0.1 in the range of between 115 microns and 170 microns and the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a DV0.1 in the range of between 80 microns and 120 microns.
Bissell however discloses in paragraph 71 that “the agricultural spray may be delivered from an agricultural nozzle in ground applications to produce fewer fine droplets, such as reduce the number of fine droplets by at least about 1 percentage point, at least about 5 percentage points, at least about 10 percentage points…” and “the agricultural spray may be delivered from an agricultural nozzle in ground applications to either reduce, maintain or increase by up to 100 percentage points (e.g., up to 75 percentage points, up to 50 percentage points, up to 25 percentage points, or up to 15 percentage points) the number of ultra-coarse droplets…”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to have the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a DV0.1 in the range of between 115 microns and 170 microns and the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a DV0.1 in the range of between 80 microns and 120 microns, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is flow rate and nozzle structure which achieves the recognized result of the desired optimal spray droplet and percentage of its volume taken up by said droplets, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Wendte, as modified above, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets
wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets
While the references do not explicitly teach the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a DV0.9 in the range of between 400 microns and 560 microns and the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a DV0.9 in the range of between 230 microns and 520 microns.
Ridings, however, discloses in par. 43 that “a higher rpm results in a smaller average Volume Mean Diameter (VMD) for droplets of fluid dispersed. Consequently, droplet size and flowrate can be adjusted independently by modifying the angle of the blades and using a flow restrictor 26 which can be at a proper restrictor size or adjustable to a desired restriction”.
Bissell further discloses in paragraph 71 that “the agricultural spray may be delivered from an agricultural nozzle in ground applications to produce fewer fine droplets, such as reduce the number of fine droplets by at least about 1 percentage point, at least about 5 percentage points, at least about 10 percentage points…” and “the agricultural spray may be delivered from an agricultural nozzle in ground applications to either reduce, maintain or increase by up to 100 percentage points (e.g., up to 75 percentage points, up to 50 percentage points, up to 25 percentage points, or up to 15 percentage points) the number of ultra-coarse droplets…”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to have the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a DV0.9 in the range of between 400 microns and 560 microns and the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a DV0.9 in the range of between 230 microns and 520 microns, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is flow rate and nozzle structure which achieves the recognized result of the desired optimal spray droplet and percentage of its volume taken up by said droplets, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 9, Wendte, as modified above, teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a volume percentage of spray droplets below 150 microns (Bissell par. 72: “a VMD of less than approximately 136 μm”)
While the references do not explicitly teach when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a volume percentage of spray droplets below 150 microns in the range of between 59% to 70%;
wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a volume percentage of spray droplets below 150 microns in the range of between 13% to 48%.
However, Bissell further discloses in paragraph 71 that “the agricultural spray may be delivered from an agricultural nozzle in ground applications to produce fewer fine droplets, such as reduce the number of fine droplets by at least about 1 percentage point, at least about 5 percentage points, at least about 10 percentage points…” and “the agricultural spray may be delivered from an agricultural nozzle in ground applications to either reduce, maintain or increase by up to 100 percentage points (e.g., up to 75 percentage points, up to 50 percentage points, up to 25 percentage points, or up to 15 percentage points) the number of ultra-coarse droplets…”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to have when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a volume percentage of spray droplets below 150 microns in the range of between 59% to 70%; when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a volume percentage of spray droplets below 150 microns in the range of between 13% to 48%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is flow rate and nozzle structure which achieves the recognized result of the desired optimal spray droplet and percentage of its volume taken up by said droplets, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 10, Wendte, as modified above, does not explicitly teach wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a volume percentage of spray droplets below 100 microns in the range of between 2% to 7%; wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a volume percentage of spray droplets below 100 microns in the range of between 5% to 20%.
Ridings, however, discloses an atomizing disc nozzle and in par. 43 further indicates that “a higher rpm results in a smaller average Volume Mean Diameter (VMD) for droplets of fluid dispersed. Consequently, droplet size and flowrate can be adjusted independently by modifying the angle of the blades and using a flow restrictor 26 which can be at a proper restrictor size or adjustable to a desired restriction”.
Bissell further teaches various range of VMD of spray droplets from 50 – 622 µm (par. 72) utilizing different nozzles. Bissell also discloses in paragraph 71 that “the agricultural spray may be delivered from an agricultural nozzle in ground applications to produce fewer fine droplets, such as reduce the number of fine droplets by at least about 1 percentage point, at least about 5 percentage points, at least about 10 percentage points…” and “the agricultural spray may be delivered from an agricultural nozzle in ground applications to either reduce, maintain or increase by up to 100 percentage points (e.g., up to 75 percentage points, up to 50 percentage points, up to 25 percentage points, or up to 15 percentage points) the number of ultra-coarse droplets…”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to have when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a volume percentage of spray droplets below 100 microns in the range of between 2% to 7%; wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a volume percentage of spray droplets below 100 microns in the range of between 5% to 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05.II. The Examiner notes that a particular parameter must be recognized as a result effective variable, in this case, that parameter is flow rate and nozzle structure which achieves the recognized result of the desired optimal spray droplet and percentage of its volume taken up by said droplets, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention would have found the claimed range through routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 16, Wendte discloses the liquid spray is sprayed at a liquid spray rate such that the volume of liquid spray to be sprayed per area is less than or equal to 25 L/ha (Par. 26: “the applicator 10 may be configured to meter the liquids at approximately 20 … liters per ha”).
Regarding claim 17, Wendte, as modified above, discloses when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a Volume Median Diameter (VMD) of at least 240 microns (see Bissell par. 72: “218-349 µm”).
Regarding claim 18, Wendte, as modified above, discloses wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a VMD of at least 150 microns (Ridings, par. 48: “80 to 190 microns”).
Regarding claim 19, Wendte, as modified above, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with a hydraulic nozzle, the hydraulic nozzle is configured to spray droplets having a VMD that does not exceed 350 microns (see Bissell par. 72: “177-218µm”); and
wherein, when the liquid spray is sprayed with an atomizing disc, the atomizing disc is configured to spray droplets having a VMD that does not exceed 300 microns (Ridings, par. 45: “123-139 µm”; par. 48: “80 to 190 microns”).
Claims 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendte (US 20160000003) in view of Bissell (US20200154630), further in view of Faers (US 20180235208), in the alternative, Wendte (US 20160000003) in view of Bissell (US20200154630) and Ridings (US 20210212308), further in view of Faers (US 20180235208).
Regarding claim 11, Wendte, as modified above, does not explicitly teach the concentration of the at least one adjuvant in the liquid spray is in the range of between 5 to 200 g/l.
Regarding claim 20, Wendte, as modified above, does not explicitly teach the concentration of the at least one adjuvant in the liquid spray is in the range of from 10 to 130 g/l.
Faers discloses a comparable agrochemical composition having 5- 250 g/l of surfactant or dispersing aid (par. 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wendte to incorporate the teachings of Faers to utilize the concentration of the at least one adjuvant in the liquid spray is in the range of between 5 to 200 g/l or 10 to 130 g/l based on the desired distribution and deposition effect. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating dispersion and deposition for the targeted crops/plants.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendte (US 20160000003) in view of Bissell (US20200154630), further in view of Germain (US 20220174934), in the alternative, Wendte (US 20160000003) in view of Bissell (US20200154630) and Ridings (US 20210212308), further in view of Germain (US 20220174934).
Regarding claim 12, Wendte does not explicitly teach the liquid spray is applied to plants with textured leaf surfaces.
Germain discloses a system for plant treatment using a spray boom, wherein leaf surface texture is considered for deficiency and disease (par. 21, 117) in associated with treatment spray (par. 23).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wendte to incorporate the teachings of Germain to provide the liquid spray is applied to plants with textured leaf surfaces. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating appropriate treatment to certain plants symptoms of deficiency or diseases (See Paragraph 23).
Claims 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendte (US 20160000003) in view of Bissell (US20200154630), further in view of Harris (US 20180093284), in the alternative, Wendte (US 20160000003) in view of Bissell (US20200154630) and Ridings (US 20210212308), further in view of Harris (US 20180093284).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Wendte does not explicitly teach the vehicle is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV).
Harris discloses an agricultural sprayer system wherein the vehicle is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), see Abstract and fig. 6.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wendte to incorporate the teachings of Harris to provide the UAV in addition to or in place of the tractor. Doing so would yield the predictable result of facilitating spot spraying or small spray coverage when needed, to reduce cost and waste, compare to spraying via tractor with large boom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Remarks page 11: Applicant argues that Wente is not analogous since the claimed invention is directed exclusively to liquids-only low volume spraying.
This is found not persuasive because the claim recites an open-ended transition phrase. Whether or not Wente includes an additional/different nozzle for discharging solids is irrelevant to the rejection. The current claim language neither explicitly exclude solid discharging nor explicitly distinguish the liquid-only spraying feature.
Remarks pages 11-12: Applicant argues that Wente provides no disclosure of the claimed narrow adjuvant group, the specific VMD values or motivation to use them in a pure-liquid, ultra-low-volume context.
This is found not persuasive for the following reasons: 1) the current claim language requires “at least one adjuvant” and specific VMD values, which have already been addressed by additional teachings presented in the rejection above; 2) “pure-liquid” feature of the invention is not recited in the claim; even if recited, this feature is taught by Wente (i.e. there is no solid particle passing through the cited nozzles 26, nozzles 26 spray pure-liquid; par. 18: “the solids flow paths 22 may deliver the solids to first nozzles 24 (e.g., solids nozzles or solids outlets) for distributing solids, and the liquids flow paths 23 may deliver liquids to second nozzles 26 (e.g., liquids nozzles or liquids outlets) for distributing liquids” emphasis included).
Remarks Page 12: Applicant argues Bissell is silent on low-spray volumes (40L/ha as claimed).
This is found not persuasive against obviousness since the primary reference Wente already teaches various values of flow rate below 40 L/ha in paragraph 26, which meets the limitation of the claim. Bissell was cited to show known agricultural spraying with VMD values as claimed, not relevant to flow rate.
Remarks Page 12: Applicant argues that the combination of Wente in view of Bissell is not obvious against “(1) the narrow adjuvant group and (2) the ultra-low spray volume” as Bissell is silent regarding the technical effect of spraying more coarse droplets while still achieving excellent plant-canopy coverage at low volume.
This is found not persuasive. The recipe 1 and recipe 2 of the pending application are not recited in the claim, and cannot be imported into the claim scope, and are not sufficient to demonstrate the unexpected result. Independent claims 1 and 14 requires “at least one adjuvant”, one of which applicant admits that is well known in the art. Wente discloses various ranges that include flow rates below 40 L/ha, corresponding to the values identified by the pending application to be “ultra-low spray volume”. Teaching reference Bissell, and alternatively additional teaching reference Ridings were cited to show spraying structures as claimed are known to be used for agricultural spraying in the specifically recited VMD values. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the technological capabilities to utilize various combination of a known nozzle type, well-known adjuvant, and VMD values via the nozzles taught by the references with Wente to achieves spraying of the known adjuvant (Bissell: “ethoxylated alcohol” and applicant’s admitted prior art), the ultra-low volume (Wente’s paragraph 26) and droplet size (Bissell or Ridings’ nozzles) as claimed. No inventive effort would have been required.
In light of the responses above, all prior art rejections shall be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TUONGMINH NGUYEN PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0158. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM - 5PM M-F.
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 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.
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights