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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 29th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on June 29th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-17, and 20-24 are pending in the application. Claim 2 and claims 18-19 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claim 1 and claims 3-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scheuing (US 20150184113 A1) and Dakin (EP 2558156 B1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 2, 14-18, and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scheuing (US 20150184113 A1), Dakin (EP 2558156 B1), and Choy (US 5851421 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scheuing (US 20150184113 A1), Dakin (EP 2558156 B1), Lineback (Hydrogen Peroxide and Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfectants are More Effective Against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilms than Quaternary Ammonium Compounds), and Gallandat (“A Systematic Review of Chlorine-based Surface Disinfection Efficacy to Inform Recommendations for Low-resource Outbreak Settings”) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scheuing (US 20150184113 A1), Dakin (EP 2558156 B1), and Girotti (Guidelines for Using Sodium Hypochlorite as a Disinfectant for Biological Waste) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 3-7, 14-17, 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheuing (US 20150184113 A1), and in view of Dakin (EP 2558156 B1) and Scialla (EP 0824147 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 14, and 23-24, Scheuing discloses a composition comprising a hypohalite or hypochlorous acid and a soluble salt of 2,4,6 mesitylene sulfonate (see Abstract). Scheuing further discloses the compositions are liquids (see [0059]). Scheuing further discloses sodium hypochlorite as a highly effective cleaning, bleaching and sanitizing agent that is widely used in cleaning and sanitizing various hard and soft surfaces, in laundry care, etc (see [0002]) and that the compositions are liquids (see [0059]). Scheuing further discloses sodium hypochlorite at 0-10wt% (see [0036]-[0037]), sodium carbonate (see [0039]) at 0.01-10wt% (see [0040]), sodium lauryl sulfate at 1wt% (see Table 1) and alkyl sulfonates (see [0044]), a soluble salt of 2,4,6 mesitylene sulfonate (see [0027]) at 0.01-20wt% (see [0030]), a fragrance (see [0052]), and DI water at 94.5wt% (see Table 1). Scheuing further teaches 2,4,6 mesitylene sulfonate as providing stability to hypochlorite (see [0034]). Scheuing further discloses the composition as having a pH of about 10 to about 12 (see [0110]).
Scheuing fails to disclose the initial sodium hypochlorite level maintained at greater than 50% of the initial concentrated hypochlorite solution level after 48 hours at 60oC.
Scheuing discloses a composition comprising sodium hypochlorite at 0-10wt% (see [0036]-[0037]), pH adjusters (e.g., acids or bases) (see [0052]) at 0.1-10wt% (see [0057]), sodium lauryl sulfate as an anionic surfactant at 1wt% (see Table 1), a soluble salt of 2,4,6 mesitylene sulfonate (see [0027]) at about 0.01-20wt% (see [0030]), a fragrance (see [0052]), and DI water at 94.5wt% (see Table 1). Scheuing further discloses such a composition as having 58% bleach retention after 28 days at 49oC (see Table 3 and [0071]). It would stand to reason that the compositions would share similar properties, specifically an initial concentrated sodium hypochlorite level that is maintained at greater than 50% of the initial concentrated sodium hypochlorite level after 48 hours or after 168 hours at 60oC. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Scheuing further fails to disclose from about 0.0001% to about 0.01% by weight of a polyacrylate.
Scialla discloses a liquid bleaching composition comprising a hypohalite bleach and a polymer, an analogous art (see Abstract). Scialla further discloses the polymer may be a polyacrylate at less than 0.5wt% (see page 2 line 40-42). Scialla further discloses sodium hypochlorite as a suitable hypohalite (see page 3 line 14-16). Scialla further discloses the polymer provides a reduction of the yellowing of the fabrics treated therewith, improved whiteness, and improved fabric safety (see page 3 line 31-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, utilize the polyacrylate at less than 0.5wt% of Scialla in the composition of Scheuing for the purpose of providing a reduction of the yellowing of the fabrics treated therewith, improved whiteness, and improved fabric safety, as disclosed by Scialla.
Scheuing further fails to disclose a dispensing container having a greater volume than the sealed container, which is formatted to contain a stable dilute hypohalite formulation comprising the concentrated hypohalite formulation and tap water. Scheuing further fails to disclose the dilute hypohalite formulation having a pH of about 11-12 and at a dilution of 1:10-1:20 of the concentrated hypohalite formulation with tap water and having an initial dilute sodium hypochlorite level which remains greater than 50% after the initial dilution level after 48 hours at 60oC. Scheuing further fails to disclose the formulation including sodium hypochlorite in a reduced amount of no greater than 1wt%.
Dankin discloses a device for the preparation of a dilute solution of stabilized sodium hypochlorite, an analogous art (see Abstract). Dankin further teaches that dilute solutions degrade over time and thus there is a need for mixing of a solution when required (see Col 1 line 19-21) and the disclosed invention provides for the required mixing (see Col 1 line 41-42). Dankin further discloses a disinfectant reservoir holding undiluted solution (see Claim 1, Figure 1 part 122) and a second container comprising a diluent (Figure 1 part 126). Dankin further discloses the disinfectant reservoir (part 122) is attached to the outer wall of the diluent container (see Col 10 line 57-58) or inside of the third reservoir (see Col 11 line 2-3). Further, Dankin discloses the diluent container is configured to hold a predetermined volume of 0.1-2L (see Col 10 line 45-48) and is further configured to allow the liquid in the reservoir to be introduced wholly and completely with the diluent in the second container (part 126) (see Col 11 line 3-8). Dankin further teaches there may be a seal between the first and third reservoir which may be opened by the user (see Col 11 line 8-12)). As shown in Figure 1, part 122 is smaller than part 126 (see Figure 1). Dankin further discloses a spray nozzle (see Col 10 line 1-2, Col 10 line 48-50, and Figure 1, part 142). Dankin further discloses the diluent may be water (Col 2 line 31-32). Dankin further teaches a ratio of undiluted solution to water as 1:10 to 1:40 (see Col 2 line 40) and a dilute disinfectant solution in which the sodium hypochlorite concentration is 0.025-0.2wt% (see Col 2 line 50-55).
Further, at a dilution of 1:10, the pH of the 12 aqueous bleaching composition disclosed by Scheuing would be 11 (see below calculations). Scheuing further discloses the composition as having a pH of about 10 to about 12 (see [0110]). A pH of 12 is exemplary of a suitable pH for the disclosed composition.
p
H
=
12
,
p
O
H
=
1
[
O
H
-
]
=
10
-
1
=
0.01
M
[
O
H
-
]
n
e
w
=
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
O
H
-
d
i
l
u
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
[
O
H
-
]
n
e
w
=
0.01
10
=
0.001
M
p
O
H
n
e
w
=
-
log
0.001
=
3
p
H
n
e
w
=
14
-
3
=
11
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the device for the preparation of a dilute solution, as taught by Dankin, with the cleaning composition containing sodium hypochlorite, as taught by Scheuing, for the purpose of preparing a stable dilute solution as necessary and preventing the degradation of a dilute solution, as taught by Dankin.
With regard to claim 3 and claim 15, Scheuing teaches the aqueous solution may comprise a fragrance (see [0052]).
With regard to claim 4 and claim 20, Scheuing teaches alkyl sulfonates as anionic surfactants (see [0044]).
With regard to claims 5, 7, and 16, Scheuing teaches sodium hypochlorite at 0-10wt% (see [0036]-[0037]).
With regard to claim 6 and claim 17, Scheuing further discloses the composition as having a pH of about 10 to about 12 (see [0110]).
With respect to the pH of the concentrated hypohalite formulation of about 0.5 to 1.2 higher than the pH of the dilute hypohalite formulation considering that Scheuing teaches an aqueous bleaching composition at a pH of 12 and Dankin teaches a dilution in the range of 1:10 to 1:40 as the dilution ratio, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the references (pH of 12 of the concentrated solution at 1:10 dilution would equate to a pH of 11, see calculations below) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I). ). Further, at a dilution of 1:10, the pH of the 12 aqueous bleaching composition disclosed by Scheuing would be 11 (see below calculations). Scheuing further discloses the composition as having a pH of about 10 to about 12 (see [0110]). A pH of 12 is exemplary of a suitable pH for the disclosed composition.
p
H
=
12
,
p
O
H
=
1
[
O
H
-
]
=
10
-
1
=
0.01
M
[
O
H
-
]
n
e
w
=
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
O
H
-
d
i
l
u
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
[
O
H
-
]
n
e
w
=
0.01
10
=
0.001
M
p
O
H
n
e
w
=
-
log
0.001
=
3
p
H
n
e
w
=
14
-
3
=
11
The above calculations show that an undiluted solution of a pH of 12 diluted by a factor of 1:10 would result in a pH of 11. This falls within the range of the pH of the concentrated solution of 0.5 to 1.2 higher than the diluted solution. In the case of an undiluted solution of pH 12, this would equate to a range of a diluted solution pH equal to 11.5 to 12.2.
With regard to claim 21 and claim 22, Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla disclose all of the limitations of claim 1 and claim 14.
However, Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla fail to disclose the concentrated hypohalite formulation having a shelf life of at least one year prior to dilution with tap water and having an initial dilute sodium hypochlorite level that retains greater than 50% of the initial dilute sodium hypochlorite level after 168 hours at 60o.
Scheuing discloses a composition comprising sodium hypochlorite at 0-10wt% (see [0036]-[0037]), pH adjusters (e.g., acids or bases) (see [0052]) at 0.1-10wt% (see [0057]), sodium lauryl sulfate as an anionic surfactant at 1wt% (see Table 1), a soluble salt of 2,4,6 mesitylene sulfonate (see [0027]) at 0.01-20wt% (see [0030]), a fragrance (see [0052]), and DI water at 94.5wt% (see Table 1). It would stand to reason that the compositions would share similar properties, specifically an initial concentrated sodium hypochlorite level that is maintained at greater than 50% of the initial concentrated sodium hypochlorite level after 48 hours or after 168 hours at 60oC and remain shelf stable after one year. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01(I), “where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)” and 2112.01(II), "products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheuing (US 20150184113 A1), and in view of Dakin (EP 2558156 B1) and Scialla (EP 0824147 A1), as evidenced by Lineback (Hydrogen Peroxide and Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfectants are More Effective Against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilms than Quaternary Ammonium Compounds) and Gallandat (“A Systematic Review of Chlorine-based Surface Disinfection Efficacy to Inform Recommendations for Low-resource Outbreak Settings”)
With regard to claim 8 and claim 9, Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla fail to disclose the dilute hypohalite formulation as effective against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria within 10 minutes and exhibiting at least a 3 log reduction in one or more viruses within 10 minutes.
Lineback teaches sodium hypochlorite at 1.312% as effective against Staphylococcus aureus, a gram-positive bacteria species, at a log reduction of 8.73 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a gram-negative bacteria species, at a log reduction of 8.75 after 4 minutes (see Table 1, Figure 1, and Results). While greater than the 1wt% disclosed in the instant claims, the instant claims specifically state “about 1wt%”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find 1.312% obvious given the claim of “about 1wt%”.
Gallandat teaches 1wt% of sodium hypochlorite as effective against Ebola virus, a virus, with a log reduction of greater than 6 after 5 minutes (see Table 4).
Scheuing discloses a composition comprising sodium hypochlorite at 0-10wt% (see [0036]-[0037]).
With regard to claim 10 and claim 12, Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla fail to disclose the dilute hypochlorite formulation exhibiting at least a log 3 reduction in Human Coronavirus and Murine Norovirus within 10 minutes. Human Norovirus is a virus.
Gallandat teaches 1wt% of sodium hypochlorite as effective against Ebola virus, a virus, with a log reduction of greater than 6 after 5 minutes (see Table 4).
This weight percent is identical to the dilute solution disclosed in the instant claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that such a solution would show similar efficacy against other viruses, specifically Human Coronavirus and Murine Norovirus.
With regard to claim 11, Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla fail to disclose the dilute hypochlorite formulation exhibiting at least a log 3 reduction in Clostridioides difficile within 10 minutes. Clostridioides difficile is a gram-positive bacteria species.
Lineback teaches sodium hypochlorite at 1.312% as effective against Staphylococcus aureus, a gram-positive bacteria species, at a log reduction of 8.73.
While greater than the 1wt% disclosed in the instant claims, the instant claims specifically state “about 1wt%”. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find 1.312% obvious given the claim of “about 1wt%”. It stands to reason that a solution effective against one gram-positive bacteria species (Staphylococcus aureus) would be similarly effective against another gram-positive bacteria species.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheuing (US 20150184113 A1), and in view of Dakin (EP 2558156 B1), Scialla (EP 0824147 A1), and in further view of Girotti (Guidelines for Using Sodium Hypochlorite as a Disinfectant for Biological Waste).
With regard to claim 13, Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla fail to disclose the dilute hypohalite formulation with about 0.4% to less than 1% of sodium hypochlorite as effective at discoloring mold.
Girotti teaches sodium hypochlorite as frequently used as an effective disinfecting agent for viruses, bacteria, fungi, and mycobacterium (see Introduction). Mold is a type of fungus. Girotti further discloses the appropriate concentration of sodium hypochlorite as 5000ppm, approximately 0.5% (see Concentration & Contact Time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize a concentration of approximately 0.5% of sodium hypochlorite, as disclosed by Western University, in the composition disclosed by Scheuing, Dankin, and Scialla, for the purpose of utilizing an effective concentration of sodium hypochlorite for disinfecting fungus, as disclosed by Girotti.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-17, and 20-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that none of the cited art fairly teaches or suggests the features of a sealed container of concentrated hypohalite that can be diluted with tap water and in which the diluted formulation maintains its stability and efficacy for its intended use in cleaning, removing stains from and/or bleaching textiles or other items, sanitizing and/or sterilizing objects or surfaces. Applicant further argues that none of the cited art fairly teaches or suggests a concentrated formulation that can be diluted to a dilute formulation that is deliverable in a liquid stream for use (e.g., as a spray or a mist).
As stated above, Dankin discloses a device for the preparation of a dilute solution of stabilized sodium hypochlorite, an analogous art (see Abstract). Dankin further teaches that dilute solutions degrade over time and thus there is a need for mixing of a solution when required (see Col 1 line 19-21) and the disclosed invention provides for the required mixing (see Col 1 line 41-42). Dankin further discloses a disinfectant reservoir holding undiluted solution (see Claim 1, Figure 1 part 122) and a second container comprising a diluent (Figure 1 part 126). Dankin further discloses the disinfectant reservoir (part 122) is attached to the outer wall of the diluent container (see Col 10 line 57-58) or inside of the third reservoir (see Col 11 line 2-3). Dankin further discloses a spray nozzle (see Col 10 line 1-2, Col 10 line 48-50, and Figure 1, part 142). Dankin further discloses the diluent may be water (Col 2 line 31-32). Dankin further teaches a ratio of undiluted solution to water as 1:10 to 1:40 (see Col 2 line 40) and a dilute disinfectant solution in which the sodium hypochlorite concentration is 0.025-0.2wt% (see Col 2 line 50-55).
Applicant further argues that Scheuing discloses liquid bleach compositions including a hypohalite and a soluble salt of 2, 4, 6 mesitlyne sulfonate as a stabilizing agent for the hypohalite. Applicant further argues that Scheuing discloses 2, 4, 6 mesitlyne sulfonate provides superior benefits that are "far beyond the stabilizing effect" and are further "unexpectedly superior" to previously studied aryl sulfonates and thus no other stabilizing agent is necessary. Further, claim 1 recites a stability agent comprising polyacrylate. Therefore, the stability agent is not limited to only that compound.
As stated above, Scialla discloses a liquid bleaching composition comprising a hypohalite bleach and a polymer, an analogous art (see Abstract). Scialla further discloses the polymer may be a polyacrylate at less than 0.5wt% (see page 2 line 40-42). Scialla further discloses sodium hypochlorite as a suitable hypohalite (see page 3 line 14-16). Scialla further discloses the polymer provides a reduction of the yellowing of the fabrics treated therewith, improved whiteness, and improved fabric safety (see page 3 line 31-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, utilize the polyacrylate at less than 0.5wt% of Scialla in the composition of Scheuing for the purpose of providing a reduction of the yellowing of the fabrics treated therewith, improved whiteness, and improved fabric safety, as disclosed by Scialla. MPEP 2144 (IV) states “the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336”.
Applicant further argues that Dankin provides no motivation for the inclusion of a polyacrylate.
As stated above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, utilize the polyacrylate at less than 0.5wt% of Scialla in the composition of Scheuing for the purpose of providing a reduction of the yellowing of the fabrics treated therewith, improved whiteness, and improved fabric safety, as disclosed by Scialla.
Applicant further argues that Choy discloses a higher concentration of polyacrylate than is disclosed in the instant claims. As Choy is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Choy are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights