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
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “wherein the an acceleration sensor” this should be –wherein the acceleration sensor--.
Claim 16 recites “An Accessory” this should be –The accessory--.
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”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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:
Claim 1 recites “reading arrangement.” A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: “reading controller and at least one reading antenna connectable to the reading controller”
Claim 1 recites “transponder arrangement.” A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The transponder arrangement comprises at least one transponder that can be read wirelessly and contactlessly.
Claim 11 recites “evaluation module.” The specifications do not cite any particular structure. For examination purposes, “evaluation module” will be interpreted as any structure capable of evaluation.
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 does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 11 – 14 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.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 further recites the limitations evaluation module. The term “evaluation module” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a responding structure or technique by which the module evaluates.
A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of evaluation. When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim
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 7-14 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites “the kitchen appliance, comprising: - at least one accessory according to claim 7.” However, it is unclear if there are now multiple accessories or if applicants intended to recite the accessory according to claim 7.
Claim limitation “evaluation module” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
“Evaluation module”. The structure of the particle separation device is not described in the specification and so, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, “evaluation module” will be interpreted as any structure capable of evaluation.
Claims 8-10, 12-14 and 16 are rejected due to dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kolar (US 20180255975 A1).
Claim 1. Kolar discloses an accessory (lid 120, Fig. 1) for a kitchen appliance (blender, claim 1, Fig. 1), wherein the kitchen appliance comprises a reading arrangement (NFC component on the blender base, par. 62) having a reading controller (NFC components include a processor, par. 28) and at least one reading antenna (NFC component on the blender base receives signals, par. 63) connectable to the reading controller (NFC antenna is in communication with the processor, par. 28), wherein the accessory comprises:
at least one transponder arrangement (NFC component 624, par. 57),
wherein the transponder arrangement comprises a transponder and an accessory position sensor connected to the transponder (NFC component 624 with switches 646/648, par. 57),
wherein the accessory position sensor is configured to detect at least one accessory position parameter of the accessory (switches detects a position of the lid, claim 10, par. 57), and
wherein the transponder arrangement is configured to transmit the detected accessory position parameter to the reading arrangement (NFC component 648 communicates information about the position of the lid to the blender base, par. 57).
Claim 2. Kolar discloses the accessory according to claim 1, wherein
- the transponder is an RFID transponder (NFC component can also include RFID devices, par. 28).
Claim 3. Kolar discloses the accessory according to claim 1, wherein
- the transponder is a passive transponder (NFC device in the lid can be a passive transponder, par. 63).
Claim 4. Kolar discloses the accessory according to claim 3, wherein
- the transponder is configured to provide electrical power to the accessory position sensor based on a received reading field of the reading antenna (NFC components may be self-powered, par. 59).
Claim 5. Kolar discloses the accessory according to claim 4, wherein
- the transponder comprises at least one readable memory (read-only memory, par. 28),
- wherein at least one accessory identifier and/or accessory type identifier is/are stored in the memory (par. 28).
Claim 15. Kolar discloses the method of determining the operating position of an accessory according to claim 1, comprising:
- reading, by a reading arrangement of a kitchen appliance, the accessory position parameter of the accessory detected by the accessory position sensor (NFC component 648 communicates information about the position of the lid to the blender base’s NFC, par. 57), and
- determining, by an evaluation module of the reading arrangement, an operating position of the accessory based on the read accessory position parameter and an operating position criterion (the blending system can determine whether the blender base, container, and lid are “interlocked,” par. 35).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Humbert (US 20110301903 A1).
Claim 6. Kolar discloses the accessory according to claim 5, wherein
- the transponder comprises at least one readable memory (read-only memory, par. 28),
-
Kolar does not disclose wherein at least one calibration information of the accessory position sensor is stored in the memory
Humbert discloses a sensor wherein the calibration values are stored in the RFID tag, par. 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolar to incorporate the teachings of Humbert and provide calibration information in the transponder’s memory. Doing so would have the benefit of comparing the detected values with the calibrated and expected values.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar in view of Humbert as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Haas (US 20180255967 A1).
Claim 7. Kolar in view of Humbert does not disclose the accessory according to claim 6, wherein
-the accessory position sensor is an acceleration sensor, in particular a 3-axis acceleration sensor, and/or
- the accessory position parameter is an angle of inclination of the accessory with respect to the acceleration due to gravity.
Haas discloses an appliance for preparing wherein the cover may have an acceleration sensor to help detect hazardous situation by way of threshold values (par. 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolar in view of Humbert to incorporate the teachings of Haas and provide an acceleration sensor. Doing so would have the benefit of helping detect hazardous situations in the event that the appliance is used in air travel and is experiencing turbulence (par. 25, Haas).
Claim 8. Kolar in view of Humbert and Haas discloses the kitchen appliance, comprising:
- at least one accessory according to claim 7, and
- a reading arrangement comprising a reading controller and at least one reading antenna connectable to the reading controller (NFC component on the blender base receives signals and has a processor, par. 63 and 28).
Claim 9. Kolar in view of Humbert and Haas discloses the kitchen appliance of claim 8, wherein the kitchen appliance further comprises:
- an appliance base (base, Fig. 1), and
- at least one container arrangement (130, Fig. 12),
- wherein the appliance base and/or the container arrangement comprises the reading arrangement (blender’s base has an NFC component, par. 63), and
- the reading arrangement is configured to at least read the accessory position parameter from the transponder arrangement (NFC component on the blender base receives signals, which can include signals from the lid, par. 62-63).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolar in view of Humbert and Haas as applied to claim7 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20230111114 A1).
Claim 16. Kolar in view of Humbert and Haas does not disclose an Accessory according to claim 7, wherein the an acceleration sensor is a 3-axis acceleration sensor.
Kim discloses a cooking apparatus wherein the acceleration sensor is a 3-axis acceleration sensor (par. 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kolar in view of Humbert and Haas to incorporate the teachings of Kim. Kim demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able choose a 3-axis acceleration sensor based on design specification.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas as applied to Kolar.
Claim 1. Haas discloses an accessory (cover device 4, Fig. 1) for a kitchen appliance (apparatus 1, Fig. 1),
wherein the accessory position sensor is configured to detect at least one accessory position parameter of the accessory (acceleration sensor detects the acceleration of the cover device, par. 26), and
Haas does not disclose wherein the kitchen appliance comprises a reading arrangement having a reading controller and at least one reading antenna connectable to the reading controller, wherein the accessory comprises:
at least one transponder arrangement,
wherein the transponder arrangement comprises a transponder
wherein the transponder arrangement is configured to transmit the detected accessory position parameter to the reading arrangement.
Kolar discloses a food appliance wherein
wherein the kitchen appliance comprises a reading arrangement (NFC component on the blender base, par. 62) having a reading controller (NFC components include a processor, par. 28) and at least one reading antenna (NFC component on the blender base receives signals, par. 63) connectable to the reading controller (NFC antenna is in communication with the processor, par. 28), wherein the accessory comprises:
at least one transponder arrangement (NFC component 624, par. 57),
wherein the transponder arrangement comprises a transponder and an accessory position sensor connected to the transponder (NFC component 624 with switches 646/648, par. 57),
wherein the transponder arrangement is configured to transmit the detected accessory position parameter to the reading arrangement (NFC component 648 communicates information about the position of the lid to the blender base, par. 57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haas to incorporate the teachings of Kolar and the readers, controllers, and transponders. Doing so would have the benefit of communicating the state of the lid to the controller in the appliance to react to situations and prevent operation during undesirable states (par. 4, Kolar and par. 25, Haas).
Claim 3. Haas in view of Kolar discloses the accessory according to claim 1, wherein
- the transponder is a passive transponder (NFC device in the lid can be a passive transponder, par. 63, Kolar).
Claim 4. Haas in view of Kolar discloses the accessory according to claim 3, wherein
- the transponder is configured to provide electrical power to the accessory position sensor based on a received reading field of the reading antenna (NFC components may be self-powered, par. 59, Kolar).
Claim 5. Haas in view of Kolar discloses the accessory according to claim 4, wherein
- the transponder comprises at least one readable memory (read-only memory, par. 28, Kolar),
- wherein at least one accessory identifier and/or accessory type identifier is/are stored in the memory (par. 28, Kolar).
Claim(s) 6-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas in view of Kolar as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Humbert.
Claim 6. Haas in view of Kolar discloses the accessory according to claim 5, wherein
- the transponder comprises at least one readable memory (read-only memory, par. 28, Kolar),
-
Haas in view of Kolar does not disclose wherein at least one calibration information of the accessory position sensor is stored in the memory
Humbert discloses a sensor wherein the calibration values are stored in the RFID tag, par. 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haas in view of Kolar to incorporate the teachings of Humbert and provide calibration information in the transponder’s memory. Doing so would have the benefit of comparing the detected values with the calibrated and expected values.
Claim 7. Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert discloses the accessory according to claim 6, wherein
-the accessory position sensor is an acceleration sensor, in particular a 3-axis acceleration sensor, and/or
- the accessory position parameter is an angle of inclination of the accessory with respect to the acceleration due to gravity (inclination sensor, par. 25).
Claim 8. Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert discloses the kitchen appliance, comprising:
- at least one accessory according to claim 7, and
- a reading arrangement comprising a reading controller and at least one reading antenna connectable to the reading controller (NFC component on the blender base receives signals and has a processor, par. 63 and 28, Kolar).
Claim 10. Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert discloses the kitchen appliance according to claim 8, wherein
- the reading controller is configured to apply an antenna signal to the reading antenna so that a reading field is transmitted by the reading antenna (blender base may generate a wireless signal that operatively induces a response in one or more devices, such as a passive NFC device within a lid, par. 63, Kolar).
Claim 11. Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert does not explicitly disclose the kitchen appliance according to claim 8, wherein
- the reading controller comprises an evaluation module configured to determine an operating position of the accessory based on the read accessory position parameter (inclination sensor can detect if the cover is in an open or closed position, par. 25) and
Kolar discloses the blending system can determine whether the blender base, container, and lid are “interlocked,” and determine if operation of the blender should continue (par. 4 and par. 35)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert to incorporate the teachings of Kolar and determine if the system is locked in order for the device to be operated. Doing so would have the benefit of preventing operation of the device if the system is not locked.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Siu (US 20210177212 A1).
Claim 12. Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert does not disclose the kitchen appliance according to claim 11, wherein
- the kitchen appliance comprises at least one kitchen appliance position sensor configured to detect a kitchen appliance position parameter,
- where the operating position criterion is based on the detected kitchen appliance position parameter.
Kolar additionally discloses NFC component 648 which communicates to the blending base whether the lid is locked, par. 56-57).
Siu discloses a blender wherein the lid has multiple sensors (switches 43, par. 118, Fig. 4) to detect if a lid is securely locked (par. 119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert to incorporate the teachings of Kolar and Siu and have an additional sensor on Haas’s lid to determine if the lid is securely locked. Doing so would have the benefit of preventing operation of the device if the container is not properly seated.
Claim 13. Haas in view of Kolar, Humbert, and Siu discloses the kitchen appliance according to claim 12, wherein
- the evaluation module is configured to compare the accessory position parameter with the
Haas in view of Kolar, Humbert, and Siu does not disclose comparing both sensors on the accessory and determining the position of the accessory.
Siu discloses detecting if both switches on the lid are actuated and if both are actuated then it determines that the lid is present atop the vessel (par. 118-119).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haas in view of Kolar, Humbert, and Siu to incorporate the teachings of Siu and compare both sensors. Doing so would have the benefit of preventing operation of the device if the container is not properly seated.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gill (US 20190045973 A1).
Claim 14. Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert discloses the kitchen appliance according to claim 11, wherein
- the reading arrangement is configured at least to read the accessory identifier (NFC tag may have an identifier, par. 32, Kolar) and/or the accessory type identifier from the transponder arrangement, and
Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert does not disclose the evaluation module is configured to determine the operating position of the accessory based on the accessory identifier and/or the accessory type identifier.
Kolar discloses that NFC tags may use identifiers to give information about the component (par. 41)
Gill discloses a cooking appliance with two different types of lids (par. 11), wherein each lid has detection sensor to detect a closed condition (par. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Haas in view of Kolar and Humbert to incorporate the teachings of Kolar and Gill and have the NFC tags use identifiers to give information about the operating position of the different lids. Doing so would have the benefit of allowing the system to operate properly based on different cooking modes with different lids and provide a friendly cooking device (par. 3, Gill).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761