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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the filter case comprises” in lines 1-2. It is suggested to amend it to --- wherein the filter case further comprises ---.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a third part” in line 18. It is suggested to amend it to --- the third part ---.
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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The limitation “sealing member” in claim 6 which has been interpreted to mean or include a sealing rib 111 corresponding to a nozzle rib 103 to surround the nozzle rib 103, a cavity 112 through which a nozzle 101 penetrate the sealing member 110, and a sealing groove 113 having a shape corresponding to an upper portion of the nozzle 101. (Page 22, lines 6-9 of the Specification of the instant application; Figs. 9, 10 of the Specification of the instant application)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2013/0212894; hereinafter Kim).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
540
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
624
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
604
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Kim shows a clothes treating apparatus (100, fig. 2) comprising:
a cabinet (110, fig. 2);
a tub (120, figs. 2, 3) inside the cabinet (110, fig. 2), the tub (120, figs. 2, 3) including:
an air outlet (air outlet of item 120 where item 160 disposes, fig. 7);
a tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) protruding outward from an outer side of the tub (120, figs. 2, 3), and configured to guide air discharged through the air outlet (air outlet of item 120 where item 160 disposes, fig. 7), the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) having a duct opening (opening of item 151 where item 311 disposed inside, ANNOTATED fig. 7) formed in a side of the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7);
a filter case (161, fig. 7) to which a filter (162, fig. 7) is installed, the filter case (161, fig. 7) inserted in the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7); and
a cleaning nozzle (170, fig. 7) including a nozzle (300, figs. 7, 8, [0114]) inserted into the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) through the duct opening (opening of item 151 where item 311 disposed inside, ANNOTATED fig. 7) to be positioned inside the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7), the cleaning nozzle (170, fig. 7) coupled with the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) to be inclined with respect to the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) (as shown in fig. 7, item 316 of item 300 of item 170 being inclined with respect to item 151) so that the nozzle (300, figs. 7, 8, [0114]) faces the filter (162, fig. 7),
wherein the nozzle (300, figs. 7, 8, [0114]) has a first part (right portion or part of item 300, ANNOTATED fig. 7), a second part (left portion or part of item 300, ANNOTATED fig. 7), and a third part (middle portion or part of item 300, ANNOTATED fig. 7) located between the first part (right portion or part of item 300, ANNOTATED fig. 7) and the second part (left portion or part of item 300, ANNOTATED fig. 7), the first part (right portion or part of item 300, ANNOTATED fig. 7) is located close to the duct opening (opening of item 151 where item 311 disposed inside, ANNOTATED fig. 7), and
wherein the cleaning nozzle (170, fig. 7) is positioned so that a distance between the nozzle (300, figs. 7, 8, [0114]) and the filter (162, fig. 7) is a minimum (minimum distance between item 316 of item 300 and item 162 at middle portion or part of item 300 as shown in ANNOTATED fig. 7) at a third part (middle portion or part of item 300, ANNOTATED fig. 7) of the nozzle (300, figs. 7, 8, [0114]).
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2013/0212894; hereinafter Kim) in view of Shin et al. (US 2017/0037560; hereinafter Shin).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
540
444
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
624
528
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
604
480
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
528
428
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
370
312
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
378
368
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
358
460
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
342
304
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a clothes treating apparatus (100, fig. 2) comprising:
a cabinet (110, fig. 2);
a tub (120, figs. 2, 3) inside the cabinet (110, fig. 2), having a shape of a cylinder (as shown in fig. 3), and including:
an air outlet (air outlet of item 120 where item 160 disposes, fig. 7) formed in a circumference of the tub (120, figs. 2, 3); and
a tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) protruding outward from the tub (120, figs. 2, 3) and configured to guide air discharged through the air outlet (air outlet of item 120 where item 160 disposes, fig. 7), the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) having a duct opening (opening of item 151 where item 311 disposed inside, ANNOTATED fig. 7) formed in a side of the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7);
a filter case (161, fig. 7) to which a filter (162, fig. 7) is installed to filter a foreign material (lint, [0068]) included in air passing through the air outlet (air outlet of item 120 where item 160 disposes, fig. 7), the filter case (161, fig. 7) coupled to the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7); and
a cleaning nozzle (170, fig. 7) coupled to the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7), having one side (left side of item 170, fig. 7) corresponding to a shape of the air outlet (air outlet of item 120 where item 160 disposes, fig. 7), and inclined (as shown in fig. 7) with respect to the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) to face the filter (162, fig. 7), the cleaning nozzle (170, fig. 7) including a nozzle (300, figs. 7, 8, [0114]) inserted into the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) through the duct opening (opening of item 151 where item 311 disposed inside, ANNOTATED fig. 7) to be positioned inside the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) and configured to spray water (spraying the cleaning water, [0114]) toward the filter (162, fig. 7),
wherein the duct opening (opening of item 151 where item 311 disposed inside, ANNOTATED fig. 7) has a shape so that the nozzle (300, figs. 7, 8, [0114]) which passes through the duct opening (opening of item 151 where item 311 disposed inside, ANNOTATED fig. 7) is fully exposed to the filter (162, fig. 7) for the sprayed water to reach the filter (162, fig. 7).
Kim does not disclose the duct opening has a quadrangular shape.
Shin teaches the duct opening (Shin, opening of item 311 where item 32 disposed inside, fig. 3 and ANNOTATED figs. 1, 6) has a quadrangular shape (Shin, as shown in figs. 3, 6, 7, item 321 of item 32 has a rectangular shape or quadrangular shape, so the opening of item 311 should have a rectangular shape or quadrangular shape for receiving the item 32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the clothes treating apparatus of Kim with the duct opening has a quadrangular shape, as taught by Shin, for allowing to provide the filter case and the nozzle of the cleaning nozzle as one piece which can be accessed from an outside of the tub duct. Consequently, it provides an ease of cleaning the filter within a shorter period of time when the filter is heavily clogged. Thus, the maintenance cost is reduced and thus benefits the consumer.
Regarding claim 2, Kim as modified discloses wherein the nozzle (300, figs. 7, 8, [0114]) extends along a first direction (inclined direction of item 316 of item 300, ANNOTATED fig. 7) inclined with respect to the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7), and the first direction (inclined direction of item 316 of item 300, ANNOTATED fig. 7) is parallel to a tangent line (tangent line of item 162, ANNOTATED fig. 7) to a point (point on item 162, ANNOTATED fig. 7) on the filter (162, fig. 7).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim and Shin as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2013/0318813; hereinafter Hong).
PNG
media_image10.png
504
512
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Kim as modified discloses wherein the duct opening (opening of item 151 where item 311 disposed inside, ANNOTATED fig. 7) is formed by passing through the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7) along a second direction (horizontal direction or second direction, ANNOTATED fig. 7) perpendicular with respect to the tub duct (151, figs. 3, 7).
Kim does not disclose the duct opening is formed by passing through the tub duct along a second direction inclined with respect to the tub duct.
Hong teaches the duct opening (Hong, duct opening where item 200 disposed inside as shown in ANNOTATED fig. 11) is formed by passing through the tub duct (Hong, 161, fig. 11) along a second direction (Hong, direction or second direction of duct opening of item 161 as shown in ANNOTTED fig. 11) inclined with respect to the tub duct (Hong, 161, fig. 11).
It would have been obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claim invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the clothes treating apparatus of Kim with the duct opening is formed by passing through the tub duct along a second direction inclined with respect to the tub duct, because the applicant has not disclosed that the duct opening being formed by passing through the tub duct along a second direction inclined with respect to the tub duct provides an advantage or solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the of or the claimed because both perform the same function of equally well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the clothes treating apparatus of claim 3, wherein the first direction along which the nozzle extends is perpendicular to the second direction.
The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record so as to include the above limitations. Although Kim as modified discloses “The clothes treating apparatus of claim 3”. However, Kim does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the first direction along which the nozzle extends is perpendicular to the second direction”.
Therefore, allowance of claim 4 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the first direction along which the nozzle extends is perpendicular to the second direction” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claim 4.
As to claim 5, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the clothes treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the cleaning nozzle further comprises a nozzle rib inserted in the duct opening to cover the duct opening, and
the nozzle rib has a quadrangle shape to prevent water sprayed from the nozzle from being blocked by the nozzle rib.
The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record so as to include the above limitations. Although Kim as modified discloses “The clothes treating apparatus of claim 1”. However, Kim does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the cleaning nozzle further comprises a nozzle rib inserted in the duct opening to cover the duct opening, and the nozzle rib has a quadrangle shape to prevent water sprayed from the nozzle from being blocked by the nozzle rib.”.
Therefore, allowance of claims 5-8 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the cleaning nozzle further comprises a nozzle rib inserted in the duct opening to cover the duct opening, and the nozzle rib has a quadrangle shape to prevent water sprayed from the nozzle from being blocked by the nozzle rib.” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claims 5-8.
As to claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the clothes treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the filter case comprises: a case body having a shape corresponding to the tub duct and inserted into the tub duct; and a case opening formed in a side of the case body to correspond to the duct opening of the tub duct so that the nozzle is passed through the duct opening and the case opening.
The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record so as to include the above limitations. Although Kim as modified discloses “wherein the filter case comprises: a case body having a shape corresponding to the tub duct and inserted into the tub duct; ….”. However, Kim does not disclose the limitations of “…, wherein the filter case comprises: …; and a case opening formed in a side of the case body to correspond to the duct opening of the tub duct so that the nozzle is passed through the duct opening and the case opening”.
Therefore, allowance of claims 9-12 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the filter case comprises: …; and a case opening formed in a side of the case body to correspond to the duct opening of the tub duct so that the nozzle is passed through the duct opening and the case opening” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claims 9-12.
As to claim 13, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the clothes treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the filter case comprises a support groove formed along a circumference of the filter in a bottom of the filter case, and the tub duct comprises a support rib formed along a circumference of the air outlet and inserted into the support groove to support the filter case.
The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record so as to include the above limitations. Although Kim as modified discloses “The clothes treating apparatus of claim 1”. However, Kim does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the filter case comprises a support groove formed along a circumference of the filter in a bottom of the filter case, and the tub duct comprises a support rib formed along a circumference of the air outlet and inserted into the support groove to support the filter case”.
Therefore, allowance of claims 13-14 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the filter case comprises a support groove formed along a circumference of the filter in a bottom of the filter case, and the tub duct comprises a support rib formed along a circumference of the air outlet and inserted into the support groove to support the filter case” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claims 13-14.
As to claim 15, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the clothes treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein the filter case comprises a first support surface positioned at a lower end of a bottom of the filter case, and a catching protrusion positioned at an upper end of the bottom of the filter case and protruding outward from the filter case, the tub duct comprises a second support surface corresponding to the first support surface and supporting the first support surface, and the filter case is coupled with the tub duct by the first support surface supported by the second support surface, and the catching protrusion caught by a circumferential surface of the tub.
The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record so as to include the above limitations. Although Kim as modified discloses “The clothes treating apparatus of claim 1”. However, Kim does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the filter case comprises a first support surface positioned at a lower end of a bottom of the filter case, and a catching protrusion positioned at an upper end of the bottom of the filter case and protruding outward from the filter case, the tub duct comprises a second support surface corresponding to the first support surface and supporting the first support surface, and the filter case is coupled with the tub duct by the first support surface supported by the second support surface, and the catching protrusion caught by a circumferential surface of the tub”.
Therefore, allowance of claim 15 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the filter case comprises a first support surface positioned at a lower end of a bottom of the filter case, and a catching protrusion positioned at an upper end of the bottom of the filter case and protruding outward from the filter case, the tub duct comprises a second support surface corresponding to the first support surface and supporting the first support surface, and the filter case is coupled with the tub duct by the first support surface supported by the second support surface, and the catching protrusion caught by a circumferential surface of the tub” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claim 15.
As to claim 16, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the clothes treating apparatus of claim 1, wherein a first part of the nozzle is positioned outside the tub duct and a second part of the nozzle is positioned inside the tub duct, and both the first part of the nozzle and the second part of the nozzle are fully exposed to the filter to spray water to the filter.
The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record so as to include the above limitations. Although Kim as modified discloses “wherein a first part of the nozzle … and a second part of the nozzle is positioned inside the tub duct, and both the first part of the nozzle and the second part of the nozzle are fully exposed to the filter to spray water to the filter”. However, Kim does not disclose the limitations of “wherein a first part of the nozzle is positioned outside the tub duct and a second part of the nozzle is positioned inside the tub duct, and both the first part of the nozzle and the second part of the nozzle are fully exposed to the filter to spray water to the filter”.
Therefore, allowance of claim 16 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein a first part of the nozzle is positioned outside the tub duct and a second part of the nozzle is positioned inside the tub duct, and both the first part of the nozzle and the second part of the nozzle are fully exposed to the filter to spray water to the filter” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claim 16.
As to claim 18, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest alone or in combination as claimed the clothes treating apparatus of claim 17, wherein the first part of the nozzle is positioned outside the tub duct and the second part of the nozzle is positioned inside the tub duct, and the first part of the nozzle, the second part of the nozzle, and the third part of the nozzle are fully exposed to the filter to spray water to the filter.
The art of record does not disclose the above limitations, nor would it be obvious to modify the art of record so as to include the above limitations. Although Kim as modified discloses “wherein the first part of the nozzle … and the second part of the nozzle is positioned inside the tub duct, and the first part of the nozzle, the second part of the nozzle, and the third part of the nozzle are fully exposed to the filter to spray water to the filter”. However, Kim does not disclose the limitations of “wherein the first part of the nozzle is positioned outside the tub duct and the second part of the nozzle is positioned inside the tub duct, and the first part of the nozzle, the second part of the nozzle, and the third part of the nozzle are fully exposed to the filter to spray water to the filter”.
Therefore, allowance of claim 18 is indicated because the prior art of record does not show or fairly suggest “wherein the first part of the nozzle is positioned outside the tub duct and the second part of the nozzle is positioned inside the tub duct, and the first part of the nozzle, the second part of the nozzle, and the third part of the nozzle are fully exposed to the filter to spray water to the filter” in combination with the structural elements and/or method steps recited in at least claim 18.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached on 5712705614. 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.
/BAO D NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights