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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 2-4 and 10 are original. Claim 12 is cancelled. Claims 1, 5, 9, 11, and 13 are amended. Claims 6-8, and 14-20 remain withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 13-20 are currently pending and claims 1-5, 9-11, and 13 have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/20/2023 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the drawing objections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the sprinkler link comprises an electrically or thermally responsive alloy link selected to activate in response to a predetermined heat threshold generated by the actuation circuitry” in lines 1-3 of claim 5. Firstly, the examiner finds that the applicant discloses an a thermally responsive alloy link (Para. 007 – “The sprinkler link may comprise a glass bulb or an alloy link. The electrical trigger may comprise a micro-heater coupled directly to the sprinkler link”), and while the trigger is electrical the examiner does not find any evidence that the alloy link is electrically responsive. Secondly the examiner does not find any evidence for the alloy link selected to activate in response to a predetermined heat threshold generated by the actuation circuitry. Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the electrical trigger comprises a low-power squib or microcharge configured to be activated by the actuation circuitry in response to the actuation signal of the coordinator node, the squib being coupled to the sprinkler link to facilitate opening the water supply.” The examiner finds that the discloses a squib, but does not disclose a low-power squib or microcharge. Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 11 recites the limitation wherein the electrical trigger is mechanically and thermally coupled to the sprinkler link via a heat-conductive adhesive to improve actuation response time while maintaining electrical insulation. The examiner finds that there is support for a heat-conductive adhesive in Para. 0058 which recites “The micro heater 126 may be secured to the sprinkler link 127 using an adhesive 132 (e.g., two part epoxy)” and Para. 0068 which recites “The FPC 136 can be secured to the sprinkler link 127 using heat shrink tubing to slide over the sprinkler link 127 and the FPC 136 with thermally conductive epoxy on the back.” The examiner does not find any evidence regarding the limitation “to improve actuation response time while maintaining electrical insulation.” Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the coordinator node is configured to… based on analysis of the environmental conditions data from at least a sprinkler node from which the alarm message originated” in lines 1-8 of claim 13. Firstly, the examiner finds that environmental conditions data is recited in Para. 0008, “the coordinator node is configured to receive environmental conditions data from the plurality of sprinkler nodes.”, and para. 0049 recites, “Data will be collected and examined mathematically.” Secondly, the examiner finds that an alarm message is recited in Para. 0006, “The coordinator node is configured to transmit an actuation signal to the actuation circuitry to at least one sprinkler node in response to receiving an alarm message,” and further in para. 0048, “If an alarm condition 122 is met in subsequent pre-alarm periods 120B-C after additional pre-alarm conditions 118B-C are met, an alarm message will be sent to the coordinator node 112. The alarm message will indicate that sprinkler actuation needs to take place. Once the coordinator node 112 receives the alarm message, the coordinator node 112 will transmit instructions to the appropriate sprinkler nodes 102A-F instructing them to actuate their respective sprinkler heads 104. The sprinkler nodes 102A-F will stay awake during the alarm period 120D, or continue to wake and sleep with relatively short sleep times, if an alarm message is received by the coordinator node 112.” However, the examiner does not find any evidence regarding the analysis of the environmental conditions data, the environmental conditions data is analyzed by the coordinator node, nor that the environmental conditions data originates from the at least a sprinkler node from which the alarm message originated. Therefore, this limitation is new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the alarm message" in line 21 of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the plurality of sprinkler nodes are configured to a synchronous cyclic sleep mode” in lines 23-24 of claim 1. The claimed limitation lacks the transitive verb or other identifier linking how the sprinkler nodes are related to the synchronous cyclic sleep mode. Are the plurality of sprinkler nodes are configured to activate a synchronous cyclic sleep mode, configured to perform a synchronous cyclic sleep mode, to transmit a synchronous cyclic sleep mode or something else. The examiner will interpret this limitation as the plurality of sprinkler nodes are configured to perform a synchronous cyclic sleep mode.
Claims 2-5, 9-11, and 13 depend on claim 1, therefore claims 2-5, 9-11, and 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a low-power squib or microcharge” in line 2 of claim 9. Firstly, it unclear as to what a “low-power squib” is. Is it a squib that detonates when a certain “low” wattage is applied, a squib that has “low” power detonation, or something else? Secondly it is unclear as to what constitutes a “low-power” is it 1 watt, 10 watts, 100 watts or something else. Thirdly, the term “microcharge” is not found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary but one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention may consider a microcharge as a “small charge” it is unclear as to what charge the applicant is referring to and further what constitutes small. Is the charge a demolition charge, electrical charge, or something else? The examiner will interpret this as any a squib or charge.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wertsberger (US 2018/0200552) in view of Kwon (US 2016/0088557).
Regarding claim 1, Wertsberger discloses a mesh network fire suppression system (Para. 0169 – “wireless mesh network”; Ti. – “Fire containment system”), the system comprising:
a coordinator node (Fig. 2, 250; Fig. 3, 400; Para. 0086 – “FIG. 3 depicts a simplified block diagram of a system controller 250.”) configured as a control unit, the coordinator node comprising,
a coordinator node wireless transceiver (Fig. 3, 420; Para. 0089 recites “The I/O unit 420 may be any type of input or output circuitry capable of communicating with the various sensors and ports… wireless networks”, which is a wireless transceiver.; ),
a processor (Fig. 3, 410),
a memory (Fig. 3, 425) coupled to the processor; and
a plurality of sprinkler nodes (Fig. 1, 20; Fig. 6-8, 700 show different embodiments of sprinklers (20); Fig. 9, 780) configured to be positioned within a building (Fig. 1, 1) and connected to a water supply (Fig. 1, 5), each of the sprinkler nodes comprising,
a battery (Fig. 9, 795; Para. 0120 – “a port controller 780 … preferably comprises an energy store such as a battery 795”) as a source of power,
a sprinkler node wireless transceiver (Fig. 9, 782); configured to be in communication with the coordinator node (Para 0122-0123 – “The port controller 780 Central Processing Unit (CPU) 784, or the communications module 782 is capable of recognizing commands and queries addressed to itself … The port controller CPU is capable of responding to queries and/or initiating communications such as sending event notification directed to the system controller 250.”),
a sensor (Para. 0124 – “In certain embodiments the port controller 780 contains, or coupled to, a sensor”; Para. 0076 –“After some time the sprinkler 234 senses the fire. This may be done by the sensor coupled to the sprinkler (depicted schematically by the ellipse above the sprinkler symbol)”) configured to sense environmental conditions (Para. 0124 – “Sensors may be of any desired type, such as a heat sensor, a smoke sensor, a gas sensor, a combustion gas sensor, and the like”),
actuation circuitry (Fig. 9, 788; Para. 0129 –“ The port controller 780 also has the required hardware 788 and/or software as required to activate actuator 770.”), and
a sprinkler head (Fig. 6-8, all structural elements except for 780) coupled to the actuation circuitry and configured to dispense water when actuated;
wherein the coordinator node is configured to transmit an actuation signal to the actuation circuitry (Para. 0128 – “Clearly the main function of a port controller 780 is to activate the sprinkler or other ports under its control either in response to a local fire detection, or in response to a command from the system controller 250.”) to at least one sprinkler node in response to receiving the alarm message (Para. 0095-0097 “The controller 250 repeatedly monitors for events arriving through the I/O interface 420. When an event is received 300 it is tested 305 to determine if it is a fire event… Once a fire is assumed to have been detected, a fire zone is established 320 in the region associated with the fire event. In the depicted embodiment, ports in the fire zone are immediately activated”; The alarm message is the fire event transmitted from the sprinkler with the sensor as described in Para. 0076, 0113, and 0134.).
Wertsberger does not teach wherein the plurality of sprinkler nodes are configured to a synchronous cyclic sleep mode and each sprinkler node wakes periodically with one or more other sprinkler nodes to exchange data before returning to the sleep mode.
However, Kwon teaches a prior art comparable wireless sensor network (Fig. 1, all structural features) comprising a plurality of nodes (Fig. 1, 20) are configured to a synchronous cyclic sleep mode (Para. 0014) and each node wakes periodically with one or more other nodes to exchange data before returning to the sleep mode (Para. 0012-0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a plurality of nodes are configured to a synchronous cyclic sleep mode and each node wakes periodically with one or more other nodes to exchange data before returning to the sleep mode) as taught by Kwon, into the system disclosed by Wertsberger to overcome high power consumption of a sensor node (Para. 0006) and yielding the predictable result of the plurality of sprinkler nodes communicating to the coordinator node utilizing a synchronous cyclic sleep mode with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Wertsberger in view of Kwon teaches the system of Claim 1.
Wertsberger further discloses wherein the sprinkler head comprises a sprinkler link (Fig. 6-8, 745) configured to open the supply water when actuated (Para. 0115-0116).
Regarding claim 3, Wertsberger in view of Kwon teaches the system of Claim 2.
Wertsberger further discloses wherein the actuation circuitry comprises an electrical trigger (Fig. 6 & Fig. 7, 770) coupled to the sprinkler link and configured to activate the sprinkler link (Para. 0116).
Regarding claim 4, Wertsberger in view of Kwon teaches the system of Claim 3.
Wertsberger further discloses the sprinkler link comprises a glass bulb (Para. 0115 – “frangible bulb”; Para. 0112 – “A glass vial (the Bulb)”.)
Regarding claim 10, Wertsberger in view of Kwon teaches the system of Claim 3.
Wertsberger further discloses wherein the electrical trigger is coupled to the sprinkler link via a mechanical fastener (Fig. 6, {730, 750, 755, & 765} & Fig. 7, {730, 740, 750, 755, & 765}).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wertsberger in view of Kwon, Gregg (US 2,749,993), and Pieczykolan (US 4,648,459).
Regarding claim 5, Wertsberger in view of Kwon teaches the system of Claim 3, but does not teach wherein the sprinkler link comprises an electrically or thermally responsive alloy link selected to activate in response to a predetermined heat threshold generated by the actuation circuitry.
However, Gregg teaches a sprinkler link (Fig. 2, 24-26) comprises a thermally responsive link (Fig. 2, 26) selected to activate in response to a predetermined heat threshold (Col. 3: Ln. 67-71) generated by an actuation circuitry (Fig. 5, {27, 29-31}; Col. 4: Ln. 7-16; Col. 4: Ln. 47-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element, namely the sprinkler link (Fig. 2, 24-26) and electrical trigger (Fig. 5, 27) with a known function of activating a sprinkler (Col. 4: ln. 47-49), taught by Gregg, by performing a simple substitution with another element, namely the sprinkler link (Fig. 2, 24-26) and electrical trigger taught by Wertsberger in view of Kwon yielding the predictable result of activating a sprinkler and suppressing a fire.
Wertsberger in view of Kwon and Gregg does not explicitly disclose wherein the thermally responsive link is a thermally responsive alloy link.
However, Pieczykolan teaches a thermally responsive alloy link (Fig. 1, 20; Col. 1: Ln. 8-10 – “fusible alloy strut”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element, namely the thermally responsive alloy link with a known function of activating a sprinkler, taught by Pieczykolan, by performing a simple substitution with another element, namely the thermally responsive link taught by Wertsberger in view of Kwon and Gregg yielding the predictable result of activating a sprinkler and suppressing a fire.
Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known component or material on the basis of suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious mechanical design expediency. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of a thermally responsive alloy link (Para. 0007), this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wertsberger in view of Kwon, Allard (US 3,834,463), and Thomas (US 9,162,095).
Regarding claim 9, Wertsberger in view of Kwon teaches the system of Claim 3, but does not teach wherein the electrical trigger comprises a low-power squib or microcharge configured to be activated by the actuation circuitry in response to the actuation signal of the coordinator node, the squib being coupled to the sprinkler link to facilitate opening the water supply.
However, Allard teaches a prior art comparable sprinkler (Fig. 1-4, all structural elements) wherein an electrical trigger (Fig. 1, 120) comprises a low-power squib (Fig. 2, 34 & 37) configured to be activated by an actuation circuitry (Fig. 1, {52, 74, 76}) in response to an actuation signal (Col. 3: Ln. 19-28), the squib being coupled to a sprinkler link (Fig. 1, 18, 26, 28, 30, 36) to facilitate opening a water supply (Col. 3: Ln. 58 to Col. 4 ln. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element (electrical trigger and sprinkler link) with a known function (activating the sprinkler), taught by Allard, by performing a simple substitution with another element (electrical trigger and sprinkler link) disclosed by Wertsberger yielding the predictable result actuating the sprinkler and suppressing a fire when an actuation signal is received.
Additionally, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (an electrical trigger comprises a low-power squib configured to be activated by an actuation circuitry in response to an actuation signal, the squib being coupled to a sprinkler link to facilitate opening a water supply) as taught by Allard, into the system taught by Wertsberger in view of Kwon to provide an improved sprinkler that is extremely sensitive to detection of fires (Col. 1: Ln. 22-24) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire with a reasonable expectation of success.
Wertsberger in view of Allard does not explicitly teach the low-power squib conjured to be activated in response to an actuation signal of the coordinator node.
However, Thomas teaches the low-power squib (Fig. 2, 218; Col. 4: Ln. 29-35) configured to be activated wirelessly (Col. 6: Ln. 13-28).
Therefore, when faced with the teachings of Thomas it would have been well within the grasp of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate activation of the electrical trigger in response to an actuation signal of the coordinator node with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wertsberger in view of Kwon, and Copeland (US 1,167,481).
Regarding claim 11, Wertsberger in view of Kwon teaches the system of Claim 3, but does not teach wherein the electrical trigger is mechanically and thermally coupled to the sprinkler link via a heat-conductive adhesive to improve actuation response time while maintaining electrical insulation.
However, Copeland teaches a prior art comparable device (Fig. 1-3, all structural elements) for use with a sprinkler (Ln. 46-47) comprising an electrical trigger (Fig. 1-3, {3, 5-7}) mechanically (Fig. 1-3, 3; Ln. 26-28) and thermally (Fig. 1-3, 6; Ln. 34-38; Plastic metallic amalgam is thermally conductive and thus the electrical trigger is thermally coupled to the sprinkler link.) coupled to the sprinkler link (Fig. 1-3, {1-2 & 4}) to improve actuation response time while maintaining electrical insulation (The electrical trigger works as a heater conductive contact as described in Ln. 35-37 and thus maintains electrical insulation.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one known element, namely the sprinkler link (Fig. 1-3, {1-2 & 4}) and electrical trigger (Fig. 1-3, {3, 5-7}) with a known function of activating a sprinkler (Ln. 46-47), taught by Copeland, by performing a simple substitution with another element, namely the sprinkler link and electrical trigger taught by Wertsberger in view of Kwon yielding the predictable result of activating a sprinkler and suppressing a fire.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wertsberger in view of Kwon and DeNunzio (2023/0356014).
Regarding claim 13, Wertsberger in view of Kwon teaches the system of Claim 3.
Wertsberger further discloses wherein the coordinator node is configured to receive environmental conditions data (Para. 0016-0018 – “the first sensor being in data communication with the controller and capable of communicating thereto a condition associated with detection of a fire event… the first sensor comprises a sprinkler, which acts as a port and as a sensor”) from the plurality of sprinkler nodes (Para. 0019 – “a plurality of ports”)
Wertsberger in view of Kwon does not teach wherein the coordinator node is configured to receive environmental conditions data from the plurality of sprinkler nodes based on analysis of the environmental conditions data from at least a sprinkler node from which the alarm message originated, to selectively transmit an actuation signal to respective actuation circuitry of one or more sprinkler nodes to enable selected activation.
However, DeNunzio teaches a prior art comparable fire suppression system (Fig. {1-2, 6}, all structural features ) comprising a coordinator node (Fig. 1 & 6, 120) is configured to receive environmental conditions data (Para. 0045 – “temperature data”) from a plurality of sprinkler nodes (Fig. 1-2, 110 & 130; Para. 0023 – “The electronic coupling can be a wired or wireless connection. For example, the fluid distribution device 110 can be wired to a temperature sensor 130 to receive an actuation signal.”) based on analysis of the environmental conditions data from at least a sprinkler node from which the alarm message originated (Para. 0045-0046; Para. 0049 – “a threshold moment in fire growth is detected by temperature sensor 130k”; The at least a sprinkler node is the temperature sensor 130k and the fluid distribution device 110k.), to selectively transmit an actuation signal to respective actuation circuitry of one or more sprinkler nodes to enable selected activation (Para. 0049 – “the fluid distribution devices 110f, 110g, 110h, 110j, 110k, 110l, 110n, 110o, and 110p can be activated to suppress the fire 230”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (a coordinator node is configured to receive environmental conditions data from a plurality of sprinkler nodes based on analysis of the environmental conditions data from at least a sprinkler node from which the alarm message originated, to selectively transmit an actuation signal to respective actuation circuitry of one or more sprinkler nodes to enable selected activation) as taught by DeNunzio, into the system disclosed by Wertsberger in view of Kwon to effectively address and more preferably extinguish the fire (Para. 0066) and yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 9-11, and 13 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.
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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3752
February 13, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752