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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claims 1-13 and 15-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1 and 13 are currently amended. Applicant' s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed July 11th, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Ln. 24-25, “wherein the second amount of force is different from the first amount of force, is applied to the mechanical wire” should read --wherein the second amount of force applied to the mechanical wire is different from the first amount of force applied to the mechanical wire--
Claim 13, Ln. 19-20, “wherein the second amount of force is different from the first amount of force, is applied to the mechanical wire” should read --wherein the second amount of force applied to the mechanical wire is different from the first amount of force applied to the mechanical wire--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcos Moreira da Silva et al. (references directed to US 2024/0067010, which has an English translated disclosure of that which is found in previously published WO 2022/149096 in original Portuguese), hereinafter Marcos, in view of Abe (JP 2017170590 A) and Reddmann (WO 2013017115 A2).
Regarding Claim 1, Marcos teaches a cable management system for an electric vehicle charger, the cable management system comprising:
an enclosure 1032 (See Marcos, Fig. 6);
a sensor 1016, 1034, 1039 mounted within the enclosure 1032 (See Marcos, Fig. 5-6),
a mechanical wire 103 coupled to a charging cable 102 associated with the electric vehicle charger (See Marcos, Fig. 3);
a wire retractor 101 configured to retract and extend the mechanical wire 103 (See Marcos, Fig. 3);
and a controller 1017 electrically connected to the sensor 1016 and to the wire retractor 101, the controller 1017 configured to control the wire retractor 101 based on a sensor output of the sensor 1016 to cause the mechanical wire 103 to be selectively retracted into or extended from the enclosure 1032 based on the sensor output to selectively apply a force to the charging cable 102 (See Marcos, Fig. 5, Para. 0156-0157).
Marcos teaches all the elements of the cable management system except for the transfer lever, the pivot point, the sensor’s alignment with the transfer lever, the sensor’s activation, the force transmission coupler, and the controller being configured to control the speed of the wire retractor at a first non-zero rate and a second non-zero rate based on a sensor output.
However, Abe teaches a transfer lever 28, the transfer lever 28 pivotably mounted in the enclosure at a pivot point 40 (See Abe, Fig. 3-5);
a sensor 29 mounted within the enclosure aligned with a portion of the transfer lever 28 that is in spaced relation to the pivot point 40 (See Abe, Fig. 3-5, Para. 0021, Ln. 13-16), the sensor 29 mounted to allow the sensor to be activated to a greater extent when the transfer lever is in a second orientation than in a first orientation (See Abe, Fig. 3-5, Para. 0022, Ln. 6-8); and
a force transmission coupler 26 connected to the transfer lever 28 at a portion of the transfer lever 28 that is in spaced relation to the pivot point 40 (See Abe, Fig. 3-5, Para. 0021, Ln. 13-16), the force transmission coupler 26 receiving the mechanical wire 5 and transmitting at least a portion of a force applied to the mechanical wire 5 to the transfer lever 28 to cause the transfer lever 28 to pivot from the first orientation to the second orientation to apply a greater pressure to the sensor 29 (See Abe, Para. 0019, Ln. 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Marcos with a transfer lever, a pivot point, a sensor aligned with the transfer lever, the sensor’s activation mechanism, and a force transmission coupler, as taught by Abe, for the purpose of more accurately measuring the tension change of the mechanical wire (See Abe, Para. 0005, Ln. 9-10).
Reddmann, Figures 1-3, teaches the controller (control electronics; See Reddmann, Para. 0040) configured to control the speed of the wire retractor (cable drum; See Reddmann, Para. 0033-0034) based on a sensor output of the sensor 19 (See Reddmann, Para. 0011, Ln. 5-12, Para. 0040, Ln. 1-4),
wherein, the controller configured to control the speed of the wire retractor based on a sensor output of the sensor 19 includes the controller configured to cause the wire retractor to extend the wire 5 at a first non-zero rate when a first amount of force is applied to the wire 5 (See Reddmann, Para. 0011, Ln. 9-12), and at a different second non-zero rate when a second amount of force is applied to the wire (See Reddmann, Para. 0012, Ln. 4-6), wherein the second amount of force is different from the first amount of force (See Reddmann, Para. 0011-0012), is applied to the wire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Marcos (the wire retractor extending a mechanical wire connected to the electrical charging cable instead of extending the electrical cable itself), Abe (determining tension in a wire by using a sensor which measures force transmitted by a transfer lever over a range of pressures), and Reddmann (the wire retractor extending a wire at different speeds based on pulling force thresholds) to configure the controller to cause the wire retractor to extend the mechanical wire at a first non-zero rate when a first amount of force is applied to the mechanical wire, and at a different second non-zero rate when a second amount of force is applied to the mechanical wire, for the purpose of preventing system damage (i.e., excessive stress on components) (See Reddmann, Para. 0012, Ln. 4-8).
Regarding Claim 2, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Abe further teaches wherein the force transmission coupler 26 includes a pulley 26 connected to the transfer lever 28 (See Abe, Fig. 3, Para. 0017, Ln. 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Marcos by providing the force transmission coupler with a pulley connected to the transfer lever, as taught by Abe, for the purpose of measuring the tension in the mechanical wire (See Abe, Para. 0019, Ln. 7-8). Pulleys are a well-known and commonly used component for guiding mechanical wires and transmitting the force acting on those wires to the central axis of the pulley. This force can then be directly transmitted to a measurement means or further coupled to additional force transmission components, as in the case of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 3, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Abe further teaches wherein the sensor 29 is a load cell (See Abe, Fig. 3, Para. 0022, Ln. 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Marcos with a load cell, as taught by Abe, for the purpose of measuring the pressing force from the contact portion of the transfer lever (See Abe, Para. 0022, Ln. 8-10). Load cells are a well-known and commonly used component for force measurement at a contact surface.
Regarding Claim 4, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Marcos further teaches a motor 1014 electrically connected to the controller 1017 (See Marcos, Fig. 5, Para. 0145);
a carriage 1037 movable by the motor 1014 within the enclosure 1032 between a first terminal position and a second terminal position (See Marcos, Fig. 9, Para. 0153, Ln. 1-7); and
a coupler 1033 connected to the carriage 1037 for receiving the mechanical wire 103 (See Marcos, claim 1, Pg. 6, Col. 2, Ln. 3-19),
wherein, when the carriage 1037 is in the first terminal position, the mechanical wire 103 is extended from the enclosure 1032 by a greater amount than when the carriage 1037 is in the second terminal position (See Marcos, Para. 0153, Ln. 1-7).
Regarding Claim 6, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Marcos further teaches a leadscrew 1035 coupling the motor 1014 to the carriage 1037 (See Marcos, Para. 0152, Ln. 1-6).
Regarding Claim 8, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Abe further teaches wherein the sensor 29 is mounted beneath the transfer lever 28 (See Abe, Fig. 3, Para. 0022, Ln. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Marcos with a sensor mounted beneath the transfer lever, as taught by Abe, for the purpose of measuring the tension in the wire (See Abe, Para. 0022, Ln. 4-5). This mounting location allows the force generated by the wire tension to be transferred from the transfer lever to the sensor.
Regarding Claim 9, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Abe further teaches wherein the sensor 29 is a pressure sensor (See Abe, Fig. 3, Para. 0022, Ln. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Marcos with a pressure sensor, as taught by Abe, for the purpose of measuring the pressing force from the contact portion of the transfer lever (See Abe, Para. 0022, Ln. 8-10). A pressure sensor used for measuring contact pressure is comprised of an array of load cells or other similar commercially available and commonly used components for force measurement at a contact surface.
Regarding Claim 11, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Abe further teaches wherein the force transmission coupler 26 fixedly connects the mechanical wire 5 to the transfer lever 28 (See Abe, Fig. 3, Para. 0019, Ln. 1-2 and 7-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Marcos with a fixed connection between the mechanical wire and the transfer lever, as taught by Abe, for the purpose of measuring the tension in the wire (See Abe, Para. 0007, Ln. 3-7).
Claims 5, 7, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marcos (references directed to US 2024/0067010, which has an English translated disclosure of that which is found in previously published WO 2022/149096 in original Portuguese) in view of Abe (JP 2017170590 A) and Reddmann (WO 2013017115 A2) as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 11 above, and in further view of Fournier et al. (US 2017/0129355), hereinafter referred to as Fournier.
Regarding Claim 5, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann teach all the elements of the cable management system except for the mechanical disconnect to mechanically release the mechanical wire from the carriage.
However, Fournier teaches a mechanical disconnect 14 to mechanically release the mechanical wire 6 from the carriage 24 when a force greater than a threshold is applied to the mechanical wire 6 (See Fournier, Fig. 3a-3b, Para. 0019, Ln. 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann with a mechanical disconnect, as taught by Fournier, for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of damage to the cable management system caused by excessive tensile or pulling force on the wire, e.g. an electric vehicle accidentally leaving the charging station with the charging cable still connected to the charging socket of the vehicle (See Fournier, Para. 0019, Ln. 9-16).
Regarding Claim 7, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann teach all the elements of the cable management system except for the weight.
However, Fournier teaches wherein the carriage 24 includes a weight 28 for downwardly biasing the carriage 24 (See Fournier, Fig. 3a, Para. 0023, Ln. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann with a weight, as taught by Fournier, for the purpose of calibrating the tension in the wire and, thus, adjusting the wire retraction force (See Fournier, Para. 0023, Ln. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 10, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann teach all the elements of the cable management system except for the mechanical disconnect to mechanically release the mechanical wire from the transfer lever.
However, Fournier teaches a mechanical disconnect 14 to mechanically release the mechanical wire 6 from the transfer lever 24 when a force greater than a threshold is applied to the mechanical wire 6 (See Fournier, Fig. 3a-3b, Para. 0019, Ln. 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann with a mechanical disconnect, as taught by Fournier, for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of damage to the cable management system caused by excessive tensile or pulling force on the wire, e.g. an electric vehicle accidentally leaving the charging station with the charging cable still connected to the charging socket of the vehicle (See Fournier, Para. 0019, Ln. 9-16).
Regarding Claim 12, Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are advanced above.
Marcos in view of Abe teach all the elements of the cable management system except for the enclosure housing the electric vehicle charger itself.
However, Fournier teaches wherein the enclosure 4 houses the electric vehicle charger 1 (See Fournier, Fig. 2, Para. 0015, Ln. 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann with an electric vehicle charger, as taught by Fournier, for the purpose of powering the charging station (See Fournier, Para. 0014, Ln. 6-9).
Claims 13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (JP 2017170590 A) in view of Marcos (references directed to US 2024/0067010, which has an English translated disclosure of that which is found in previously published WO 2022/149096 in original Portuguese) and Reddmann (WO 2013017115 A2).
Regarding Claim 13, Abe teaches a wire tension sensor for generating output based on a force upon a mechanical wire, the wire tension sensor comprising:
a transfer lever 28, the transfer lever 28 pivotably mounted at a pivot point 40 (See Abe, Fig. 3-5);
a sensor 29 aligned with a portion of the transfer lever 28 that is in spaced relation to the pivot point 40 (See Abe, Fig. 3-5, Para. 0021, Ln. 13-16), the sensor 29 mounted to allow the sensor to be activated to a greater extend when the transfer lever 28 is in a second orientation than in a first orientation (See Abe, Fig. 3-5, Para. 0022, Ln. 6-8);
a force transmission coupler 26 connected to the transfer lever 28 at a portion of the transfer lever 28 that is in spaced relation to the pivot point 40 (See Abe, Fig. 3-5, Para. 0021, Ln. 13-16), the force transmission coupler 26 configured for receiving a mechanical wire 5 and transmitting at least a portion of a force applied to the mechanical wire 5 to the transfer lever 28 to cause the transfer lever 28 to pivot from the first orientation to the second orientation to apply a greater pressure to the sensor 29 (See Abe, Para. 0019, Ln. 7-8).
Abe teaches all the elements of the wire tension sensor except for the controller and the enclosure in which the lever and sensor are mounted.
However, Marcos teaches the transfer lever 1038 mounted in an enclosure 1032 (See Marcos, Fig. 6 and 8),
a sensor 1016, 1034, 1039 mounted within the enclosure 1032 (See Marcos, Fig. 5-6), and
a controller 1017, the controller 1017 configured to generate a control signal to control a speed of a wire retractor 101 based on an output of the sensor 1016, 1034, 1039 to cause the mechanical wire 103 to be selectively retracted into or extended from the enclosure 1032 based on the sensor output (See Marcos, Fig. 5, Para. 0156-0157).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Abe with an enclosure for the transfer lever and sensor, as taught by Marcos, for the purpose of protecting the components from the outside environment. Enclosures are a well-known and commonly used component to protect mechanical and electrical components from damage and/or interference with device function.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Abe with a wire retractor and a controller which controls said wire retractor, as taught by Marcos, for the purpose of controlling the pulling strength and speed of the mechanical wire (See Marcos, Para. 0031, Ln. 6-7).
Reddmann, Figures 1-3, teaches the controller (control electronics; See Reddmann, Para. 0040) configured to control the speed of the wire retractor (cable drum; See Reddmann, Para. 0033-0034) based on a sensor output of the sensor 19 (See Reddmann, Para. 0011, Ln. 5-12, Para. 0040, Ln. 1-4),
wherein, the controller configured to control the speed of the wire retractor based on a sensor output of the sensor 19 includes the controller configured to cause the wire retractor to extend the wire 5 at a first non-zero rate when a first amount of force is applied to the wire 5 (See Reddmann, Para. 0011, Ln. 9-12), and at a different second non-zero rate when a second amount of force is applied to the wire (See Reddmann, Para. 0012, Ln. 4-6), wherein the second amount of force is different from the first amount of force (See Reddmann, Para. 0011-0012), is applied to the wire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Marcos (the wire retractor extending a mechanical wire), Abe (determining tension in a wire by using a sensor which measures force transmitted by a transfer lever over a range of pressures), and Reddmann (the wire retractor extending a wire at different speeds based on pulling force thresholds) to configure the controller to cause the wire retractor to extend the mechanical wire at a first non-zero rate when a first amount of force is applied to the mechanical wire, and at a different second non-zero rate when a second amount of force is applied to the mechanical wire, for the purpose of preventing system damage (i.e., excessive stress on components) (See Reddmann, Para. 0012, Ln. 4-8).
Regarding Claim 15, Abe in view of Marcos and Reddmann are advanced above.
Marcos further teaches a motor 1014 electrically connected to the controller 1017 (See Marcos, Fig. 5, Para. 0145),
a carriage 1037 coupled to a leadscrew 1035 (See Marcos, Para. 0152, Ln. 3-6), the carriage 1037 movable within the enclosure 1032 between a first terminal position and a second terminal position (See Marcos, Para. 0153, Ln. 1-7), and
a coupler 1033 connected to the carriage 1037 for receiving the mechanical wire 103 (See Marcos, Claim 1, Pg. 6, Col. 2, Ln. 3-19),
wherein, when the carriage 1037 is in the first terminal position, the mechanical wire 103 is extended from the enclosure 1032 by a greater amount than when the carriage 1037 is in the second terminal position (See Marcos, Para. 0153, Ln. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Abe with a motor, a carriage, a leadscrew, and a coupler, as taught by Marcos, for the purpose of retracting and extending the mechanical wire while ensuring user comfort (See Marcos, Para. 0043, Ln. 1-4).
Regarding Claim 16, Abe in view of Marcos and Reddmann are advanced above.
Abe further teaches wherein the force transmission coupler 26 includes a pulley 26 connected to the transfer lever (See Abe, Fig 3, Para. 0017, Ln. 5-6).
Regarding Claim 17, Abe in view of Marcos and Reddmann are advanced above.
Abe further teaches wherein the sensor 29 is mounted beneath the transfer lever 28 (See Abe, Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Abe in view of Marcos and Reddmann are advanced above.
Abe further teaches wherein the force transmission coupler 26 fixedly connects the mechanical wire 5 to the transfer lever 28 (See Abe, Fig. 3, Para. 0019, Ln. 1-2 and 7-8).
Regarding Claim 20, Abe in view of Marcos and Reddmann are advanced above.
Marcos further teaches wherein the mechanical wire 103 is coupled to a charging cable 102 associated with an electric vehicle charger 100 (See Marcos, Fig. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abe by coupling the mechanical wire with a charging cable associated with an electric vehicle charger, as taught by Marcos, for the purpose of assisting a user in the task of mobilizing and moving an electric charging cable for charging electric vehicles and preventing it from touching the ground when not in use (See Marcos, Abstract, Ln. 4-9).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe (JP 2017170590 A) in view of Marcos (references directed to US 2024/0067010, which has an English translated disclosure of that which is found in previously published WO 2022/149096 in original Portuguese) and Reddmann (WO 2013017115 A2) as applied to claims 13-17 and 19-20, above, and in further view of Fournier (US 2017/0129355).
Regarding Claim 18, Abe in view of Marcos and Reddmann are advanced above.
Abe in view of Marcos and Reddmann teach all the elements of the wire tension sensor except for the mechanical disconnect to mechanically release the mechanical wire from the transfer lever.
However, Fournier teaches a mechanical disconnect 14 to mechanically release the mechanical wire 6 from the transfer lever 24 when a force greater than a threshold is applied to the mechanical wire 6 (See Fournier, Fig. 3a-3b, Para. 0019, Ln. 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Abe in view of Marcos and Reddmann with a mechanical disconnect to mechanically release the mechanical wire from the transfer lever, as taught by Fournier, for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of damage to the cable management system caused by excessive tensile or pulling force on the wire, e.g. an electric vehicle accidentally leaving the charging station with the charging cable still connected to the charging socket of the vehicle (See Fournier, Para. 0019, Ln. 9-16).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pg. 6-10, filed January 12th, 2026, have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the amended claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Marcos in view of Abe and Reddmann are utilized in the current rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 (See Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above).
Regarding the rejections of Claims 2-12, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 1 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, these claims are also rejected based on the new ground of rejection presented above.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant has amended the claim. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously set forth rejection. Therefore, this rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection has been set forth under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the amended claim.
Amendments presented in claim 13 fall within the scope of the amendments presented in claim 1, Applicant supports amendment with the same reasoning presented with respect to claim 1 discussed above, and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, these claims are also rejected based on the new ground of rejection presented with respect to claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of Claims 15-20, the claims are dependents of rejected claim 13 and Applicant has provided no additional arguments. Therefore, these claims are also rejected based on the new ground of rejection presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is 571-272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7:30pm ET.
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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at 313-446-4858. 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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619