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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 9, 16, and 19 have been amended. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 6/5/2026.
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.
Claims 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) in view of Bhimavarapu (US 10980689 B2), in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1), further in view of Aghassian (US 20170361113 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Zerhusen discloses a patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10), comprising: a frame (base frame 20) having a head end (head end 14) and a foot end (foot end 12); a support arm (arm 66) operably coupled to the head end of the frame (See Fig. 1, arm 66 coupled at head end of base frame 20); a vertical support (flexible leg 158) operably coupled to the support arm (See Fig. 2, flexible leg 158 coupled to arm 66 with pivot 94 in between); and a housing (support structure 168) operably coupled to the vertical support and configured to retain an electronic device (See Fig. 2, support structure 168 coupled to end of flexible leg 158 housing), the housing including: a support mechanism (pair of bases 172, 174) configured to selectively support the electronic device on the housing (See Fig. 3, support structure 168 supporting tablet computer 170), the support mechanism defining: a shelf (pair of bases 172, 174); a dynamic engagement member (adjustable clamp 176); and a charging assembly (USB charging port 164) disposed {between a charging sensor and a primary circuit board} within (“USB charging port 164 being secured to the frame member 175”; [0098]).
Zerhusen fails to explicitly disclose first and second magnetic features; and the charging assembly disposed between a charging sensor and a primary circuit board and including a wireless charging feature and also a wired charging feature to charge the electronic device secured on the housing, wherein the first and second magnetic features are disposed on opposing sides of the wireless charging feature.
However, Bhimavarapu teaches first and second magnetic features (See Fig. 7, magnets 270); and a charging assembly to charge the electronic device secured on the housing (See Fig. 5 and 7, device 66 secured on housing while charging), wherein the first and second magnetic features are disposed on opposing sides of the wireless charging feature (See Fig. 7, magnets 270 on opposing sides of coil 262).
PNG
media_image1.png
320
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
462
194
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen by adding the magnetic features taught by Bhimavarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “magnetically retain personal electronic device 66 directly against a mounting surface”; (Bhimavarapu, [Col. 12, Lines 62-63]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu fails to explicitly teach the charging assembly disposed between a charging sensor and a primary circuit board and including wireless charging feature and also a wired charging feature.
However, Kennedy teaches a wireless charging feature and also a wired charging feature (See Fig. 2, wired interface 274 and inductive charging interface 276).
PNG
media_image3.png
546
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu by adding the wired and wireless charger taught by Kennedy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “facilitating charging of, different types of portable electronic devices”; (Kennedy, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy fails to explicitly teach the charging assembly disposed between a charging sensor and a primary circuit board.
However, Aghassian teaches the charging assembly disposed between a charging sensor and a primary circuit board (See Fig. 5A-5D, charging coil 126 between sense coil and circuit board 124).
PNG
media_image4.png
496
687
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy by adding the sensor taught by Aghassian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “adjust the power”; (Aghassian, [0035]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 9, further comprising: an outlet (PED charger port 618) configured to supply at least one of power and data to an electronic device connector (“personal electrical devices (PED’s) such as tablet computers, smart phones, music players, and the like can be recharged by plugging them into PED charger port 618”; [0128]).
Regarding Claim 11, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 9.
Zerhusen fails to explicitly teach wherein the first and second magnetic features secure the electronic device to a forward wall of the housing and are disposed above and below a sensor of the charging assembly.
However, Bhimavarapu teaches wherein the first and second magnetic features secure the electronic device to a forward wall of the housing and are disposed above and below a sensor of the charging assembly (See Fig. 7, magnets 270 are positioned above and below coil 262, securing device 66 to mounting surface 252).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen by adding the magnetic features taught by Bhimavarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “magnetically retain personal electronic device 66 directly against a mounting surface”; (Bhimavarapu, [Col. 12, Lines 62-63]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 13, Zerhusen, as modified, discloses the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 9, wherein the housing is in communication with a battery source operably coupled to said patient support apparatus (“system 602 is configured for bidirectional communication with MCB 606 of bed 10”; 0125]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) in view of Bhimavarapu (US 10980689 B2) in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1) in view of Aghassian (US 20170361113 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Rivera Paredes (US 20170110897 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 10.
Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy in view of Aghassian fails to explicitly teach the outlet includes a spring-loaded door that keeps the outlet covered when not in use.
However, Rivera Paredes teaches an outlet includes a spring-loaded door that keeps the outlet covered when not in use (“spring loaded door 24 for closing the port or opening 26 of the dedicated receiver 20 when the portable power bank 18 has been withdrawn for use”; [0022]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy in view of Aghassian by adding the spring door taught by Rivera Paredes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “keep dirt and debris from entering”; (Rivera Parades, [0030]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) in view of Bhimavarapu (US 10980689 B2) in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1) in view of Aghassian (US 20170361113 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Peek (US 6653816 B2).
Regarding Claim 14, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 13.
Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy in view of Aghassian fails to explicitly teach a controller that monitors the battery source of said patient support apparatus and limits charging of the electronic device when a charge status of the battery source of said patient support apparatus falls below a pre-defined threshold
However, Peek teaches a controller (power management controller 306) that monitors a battery source of said patient support apparatus (“continually monitors the power demanded and the remaining cell 309 capacity”; [Col. 4, Lines 46-48]) and limits charging of the electronic device when a charge status of the battery source of said patient support apparatus falls below a pre-defined threshold (“when the capacity drops below a predetermined threshold…deactivate the accessories by toggling the power enable line 347”; [Col. 4, Lines 48-52]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the invention of Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy in view of Aghassian and the invention of Peek and arrived at a patient support apparatus including charging capabilities wherein a controller can limit charging when necessary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) in view of Bhimavarapu (US 10980689 B2) in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1) in view of Aghassian (US 20170361113 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Salzinger (US 20200119582 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) of claim 9.
Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy in view of Aghassian fails to explicitly teach a transmitting coil extends across a width of the housing and is configured to charge multiple electronic devices concurrently.
However, Salzinger teaches a transmitting coil extends across a width of the housing and is configured to charge multiple electronic devices concurrently (“charging device 400 includes a first surface 402 with two induction areas 420, 422”; [0034], See Fig. 4A).
PNG
media_image5.png
228
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu in view of Kennedy in view of Aghassian by adding the transmitting coil taught by Salzinger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “charging multiple devices simultaneously”; (Salzinger, [0027]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 20180333317 A1) in view of Kennedy (US 20210330526 A1), further in view of Peek (US 6653816 B2), further in view of Lee (US 11183885 B2).
Regarding Claim 16, Zerhusen discloses a user interface support assembly (user interface unit 160) for a patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 10) comprising: a vertical support (flexible leg 158); a housing (support structure 168) operably coupled with the vertical support (See Fig. 2, support structure 168 coupled to end of flexible leg 158 housing); at least one handle (pair of handles 180, 182) extending from the housing (See Fig. 3, handles 180, 182 extending from support structure 168); a support mechanism configured to selectively support an electronic device on the housing (pair of bases 172, 174), the support mechanism defining a shelf (pair of bases 172, 174) and a dynamic engagement member (adjustable clamp 176); and a charging assembly disposed proximate a rear side of the housing (“USB charging port 164 being secured to the frame member 175”; [0098]).
Zerhusen fails to explicitly disclose a charging assembly configured to wirelessly charge the electronic device and charge the electronic device with a wired connection; a primary circuit board that monitors and controls an amount of wireless charging that is capable by the charging assembly; a secondary circuit board that controls a charging speed of the charging assembly.
However, Kennedy teaches a charging assembly configured to wirelessly charge the electronic device and charge the electronic device with a wired connection (See Fig. 2, wired interface 274 and inductive charging interface 276).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen by adding the wired and wireless charger taught by Kennedy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “facilitating charging of, different types of portable electronic devices”; (Kennedy, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Zerhusen in view of Kennedy fails to explicitly teach a primary circuit board that monitors and controls an amount of wireless charging that is capable by the charging assembly; a secondary circuit board that controls a charging speed of the charging assembly.
However, Peek teaches a primary circuit board (See Fig. 3, power demand resistors 344, 345, 346) that monitors and controls an amount of wireless charging that is capable by the charging assembly (“continually monitors the power demanded and the remaining cell 309 capacity. When the capacity drops below a predetermined threshold…deactivate the accessories by toggling the power enable line 347”; [Col. 4, Lines 46-52]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the invention of Zerhusen in view of Kennedy and the invention of Peek and arrived at a user interface support assembly for a patient support apparatus including charging capabilities wherein a controller can limit charging when necessary. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Zerhusen in view of Kennedy in view of Peek fails to explicitly teach a secondary circuit board that controls a charging speed of the charging assembly.
However, Lee teaches a secondary circuit board that controls a charging speed of the charging assembly (“through the communication circuit, the information including a charging mode of each of the plurality of electronic devices, the charging mode being a first charging mode with a first charging speed or a second charging mode with a second charging speed slower than the first charging speed”; [Claim 1]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the invention of Zerhusen in view of Kennedy in view of Peek and the invention of Lee and arrived at a user interface support assembly for a patient support apparatus including charging capabilities wherein a controller can limit charging and control charging speed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 17, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the user interface support assembly (user interface unit 160) of claim 16 wherein the charging assembly is operably coupled with a charging indicator (“USB overlay 296 is positioned on the frame member 178 and provides indicia indicative of the operation of the USB charging port 164”; [0098]).
Regarding Claim 18, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the user interface support assembly (user interface unit 160) of claim 17, wherein the charging indicator includes visual indicia that activates when the electronic device is charging (“USB overlay 296 is positioned on the frame member 178 and provides indicia indicative of the operation of the USB charging port 164”; [0098]).
Regarding Claim 19, Zerhusen, as modified teaches the user interface support (user interface unit 160).
Zerhusen in view of Kennedy fails to explicitly teach wherein of the primary and secondary circuit boards includes a controller that monitors a battery source.
How, Peek teaches at least one of the primary and secondary circuit boards includes a controller that monitors a battery source (“continually monitors the power demanded and the remaining cell 309 capacity. When the capacity drops below a predetermined threshold…deactivate the accessories by toggling the power enable line 347”; [Col. 4, Lines 46-52]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have combined the invention of Zerhusen in view of Kennedy and the invention of Peek and arrived at a user interface support assembly for a patient support apparatus including charging capabilities wherein a controller monitors the battery source. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements with a reasonable expectation of success and with no change in their respective functions and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 20, Zerhusen, as modified, teaches the user interface support assembly (user interface unit 160) of claim 16.
Zerhusen fails to explicitly teach the charging assembly includes an inductive coupling arrangement.
However, Kennedy teaches a charging assembly includes an inductive coupling arrangement (See Fig. 2, inductive charging interface 276)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Zerhusen by adding the inductance coupling arrangement taught by Kennedy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “facilitating charging of, different types of portable electronic devices”; (Kennedy, [0093]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
None of applicant's arguments are persuasive. See the responses below and see the rejection above for details. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 and 16 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's arguments filed 6/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant’s argument:
Claim 9:
See Bhimavarapu at col. 12, II. 48-56 (emphasis added). It is clear from the disclosure of Bhimavarapu that Bhimavarapu teaches several separate and distinct embodiments. There is no indication that the cable 68 of recharging unit 56 could or would ever be used with the coil 262 of recharging system 250. Stated differently, there is absolutely no disclosure in Bhimavarapu of both wired and wireless charging features together in a single embodiment. Rather, charging using recharging system 250 via coils 262 is an alternative to charging using cable 68. As all of the features of amended claim 9 are not disclosed in or rendered obvious by any of these references, taken singly or in any combination, it stands that amended claim 9 is in condition for allowance. As amended claim 9 is allowable over Zerhusen, Bhimavarapu, and Kennedy, as well as the other references of record, it stands that claims 10, 11, and 13 are also allowable as each of these claims depends directly from an allowable base claim (amended claim 9).
Claim 16:
“With regard to claim 16, Zerhusen, Kennedy, Peek, and Tam fail to disclose or render obvious all of the features set forth in amended claim 16. As stated above, Zerhusen is generally directed to a flexible overhead arm. Kennedy discloses a patient support apparatus for removably retaining differently-sized portable electronic devices and Peek discloses a battery with embedded power management. Tam is generally directed to a portable electronic device power manager with current limit feedback control loop modification for stabilizing an external power supply. However, amended claim 16 recites "a primary circuit board that monitors and controls an amount of wireless charging that is capable by the charging assembly" and "a secondary circuit board that controls a charging speed of the charging assembly." As all of the features of amended claim 16 are not disclosed in or rendered obvious by any of these references, taken singly or in any combination, it stands that amended claim 16 is in condition for allowance. As amended claim 16 is allowable over Zerhusen, Kennedy, Peek, and Tam, as well as the other references of record, it stands that claims 17-20 are also allowable as each of these claims depends directly or indirectly from an allowable base claim (amended claim 16).”
Examiner’s Response:
Claim 9:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Bhimavarapu fails to explicitly teach both wired and wireless charging features together in a single embodiment, the examiner noted on Page 5 of the Non-Final Rejection filed on 3/5/2026that Zerhusen in view of Bhimavarapu does not disclose the limitation at issue. The examiner relies on the prior art of Kennedy to teach this claim limitation, See Page 5-6 of Non-Final Rejection and see above. Applicant has not rebutted the teaching from Kennedy and therefore has not fully addressed the combination set forth. Thus, the claim rejection of claim 9 and its dependent claims 10-15 are respectfully maintained.
Claim 16:
In response to the applicant’s argument that the prior art of Zerhusen, Kennedy, Peek and Tam fail to disclose or render obvious the amended features of Claim 16, the examiner respectfully disagrees, and the claim rejection is maintained. The examiner notes that Zerhusen in view of Kennedy fails to explicitly teach the amended features, “a primary circuit board that monitors and controls an amount of wireless charging that is capable by the charging assembly; a secondary circuit board that controls a charging speed of the charging assembly”, see page 13 above. The examiner relies on the prior art of Peek to teach, “a primary circuit board that monitors and controls an amount of wireless charging that is capable by the charging assembly”, see rejection on page 13 above. The resistors 344, 345, 346 are the specific aspects of a circuit board that assist the controller 306 in continual monitoring of demanded power and further shuts of power when the capacity drops below a certain threshold, reading upon the limitation of “monitors and controls an amount of wireless charging”. Further, the examiner relies on the prior art of Lee to teach the limitation, “a secondary circuit board that controls a charging speed of the charging assembly”, see rejection on page 13-14 above. This argument is moot as the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record (Lee). Thus, the rejection of Claim 16 and its dependent claims 17-20 are respectfully maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the claims are determined to be allowable subject matter over the prior art of record because the teachings of references taken as a whole do not teach nor render obvious the combination set forth in Independent Claim 1. Independent Claim 1 was amended to over the prior claim objections detailed in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 3/5/2026 and was determined to be allowed if the claim objections were overcome.
Therefore, with the prior art failing to disclose the instant invention and an additional search, it is the Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at and/or claimed this specific combination of features in the designed configuration based on the teachings of the prior art.
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
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 GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached on (571) 272-8525. 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights