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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 “wherein the first yarn is present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the second yarn.” It is unclear where the first yarn is limited to being present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the second yarn. (It is also unclear where the second yarns are limited to being present in the claimed relative amounts). Claims 2-9 are rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the second yarn has a single end break of from 40 to 175 grams, and a linear density of from 15 to 65 denier.” However, claim 1 limits the second yarn to having a linear density of 20 denier or higher.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the first yam is present in an amount that is greater than an amount of the second yarn.” It is unclear where the first yarn is limited to being present in an amount that is greater than an amount of the second yarn. (It is also unclear where the second yarns are limited to being present in the claimed relative amounts).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the first yarn is present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the second yarn.” It is unclear where the first yarn is limited to being present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the second yarn. (It is also unclear where the second yarns are limited to being present in the claimed relative amounts). Claims 11-16 are rejected because they depend on claim 10.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the hybrid knitted fabric and the first layer are configured and dimensioned to be positioned….” It is unclear how “configured” limits the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the first yarn is present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the second yarn.” It is unclear where the first yarn is limited to being present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the second yarn. (It is also unclear where the second yarns are limited to being present in the claimed relative amounts). Claims 18-20 are rejected because they depend on claim 17.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the hybrid knitted fabric and the first layer are configured and dimensioned to be positioned….” It is unclear how “configured” limits the claim.
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 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (CN 210151329 U, attached).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Wang teaches a covering material for a reserved opening in the upper portion of an automobile safety air bag (Abstract and page 1, lines 3-4). The covering material is a warp-knitted spacer fabric; the fabric comprises two surface fabric layers which are parallel to each other and spacer yarns for connecting the two surface fabric layers, the surface fabric layer is composed of first yarn woven in the longitudinal direction and second yarn woven in the longitudinal direction in a front-needle and back-needle periodic transverse moving mode (Abstract). Adjacent woven first yarns are connected left and right through second yarns to form a fabric layer, spacer yarns are woven and connected front and back in the surface fabric layer to form a spacer layer, and the strength of the second yarns is lower than that of the first yarns (Abstract, page 2, lines 22-24, and FIG. 1).
Preferably, the second yarn (a first yarn or a second yarn, as claimed) refers to a yarn with a breaking strength of 100 to 220 cN (102 to 224 grams, as calculated by the examiner) (page 1, lines 35-36). Preferably, the second yarn has a breaking strength of 4 ± 2 cN / dtex and a linear density of 25 to 44 dtex (50 to 264 grams, and 23 to 40 denier, as calculated by the examiner) (page 1, lines 35-36).
Preferably, the spacer yarn (the other of the first yarn or second yarn, as claimed) has a breaking strength of 100 to 300 cN (102 to 306 grams, as calculated by the examiner) (page 2, lines 3-5). Preferably, the spacer yarn has a breaking strength of 4 ± 2 cN / dtex and a linear density of 25 to 55 dtex (64 to 330 grams, and 23 to 50 denier, as calculated by the examiner) (page 2, lines 3-5).
As applied above, the second yarn of Wang meets either of the claimed first yarn or second yarn limitations, and the spacer yarn of Wang meets the other of the claimed first yarn or second yarn limitations. The examiner notes that, in one or both of these events, the first yarn (as claimed) would be present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the second yarn (as claimed).
Regarding claim 9, the examiner notes that the single end break of the second yarn (a first yarn as claimed) may be higher than that of the spacer yarn (the claimed second yarn) (e.g., a maximum of 224 grams, compared to a minimum of 102 grams).
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) 5-7, 10, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 210151329 U, attached) in view of Aust (US 2016/0280174 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wang remains as applied above to claim 1.
Wang further teaches the yarns comprising polyester yarns (page 2, lines 8-9).
Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second yarn comprises polypropylene. However, Aust teaches a spacer fabric that may include a hinge layer, a top layer, and an intermediate layer (Abstract). The top layer can be made of commercially available polypropylene fibers, for example, while the hinge layer may be made of polyester fibers ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included polypropylene yarns in the hybrid knitted fabric of Wang in order to adjust the tensile strength and//or extensibility properties in the layers of the spacer fabric for use in airbag covers, as suggested by Aust ([0019]; also [0002]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second yarn (the claimed first yarn) is present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the spacer yarn (the claimed second yarn). However, the examiner notes that the second yarn (the claimed first yarn) is present in the surface fabric layers, and the spacer yarn (the claimed second yarn) connects the surface fabric layers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the second yarn (the claimed first yarn) in an amount great than or equal to the amount of the spacer yarn (the claimed second yarn) because the second yarns (the claimed first yarns) are used for the main layers of the fabric.
Regarding claim 7, Aust teaches it is possible to incorporate fibers having higher tensile strength and/or having higher extensibility into a hinge layer ([0013]). Fibers having high tensile strength may be polyester fibers or Kevlar fibers, for example ([0013]).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Wang remains similarly as applied to claim 1, teaching a warp-knitted spacer fabric (a hybrid knitted fabric, as claimed). Aust teaches that an airbag cover, according to embodiments for a motor vehicle including an airbag, may include a decorative covering (a first layer or a substrate), a carrier (a substrate or a first layer), which has a predetermined breaking line, and a spacer fabric according to the disclosure ([0028] and [0035]).
Regarding claims 15-16, Aust teaches that if the hinge layer is attached to the carrier by way of an adhesive, smaller fibers may provide a larger surface for the adhesive, which may positively support the bond between the hinge layer and the carrier ([0015]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided an adhesive that chemically bonds the two layers by utilizing an adhesive that is chemically compatible with both layers. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have mechanically finished the surface of the fabric/fibers in order to provide larger surface area for bonding with the adhesive as desired by Aust.
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Aust does not explicitly disclose wherein (an additional) spacer fabric layer is positioned on the outer surface of the substrate within the disclosed airbag covers.
However, as claimed in claim 17, the composite material is “disposed relative” to the outer surface of a substrate, which does not require contact between a composite material and a substrate within the same airbag cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the airbag covers over multiple airbags in a vehicle, in which case a composite material in one airbag cover would be disposed relative to a carrier (a substrate) in the airbag cover of an adjacent airbag as claimed. The examiner notes that the carrier (a substrate) in the airbag cover of the adjacent airbag would have a spacer fabric positioned on it.
Regarding claim 20, Wang in view of Aust remains similarly as applied above to claims 5 and 17.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 210151329 U, attached).
Regarding claim 6, Wang remains as applied above to claim 1.
Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the second yarn (the claimed first yarn) is present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the spacer yarn (the claimed second yarn).
However, the examiner notes that the second yarn (the claimed first yarn) is present in the surface fabric layers, and the spacer yarn (the claimed second yarn) connects the surface fabric layers.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the second yarn (the claimed first yarn) in an amount great than or equal to the amount of the spacer yarn (the claimed second yarn) because the second yarns (the claimed first yarns) are used for the main layers of the fabric.
Claim(s) 10-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN 210151329 U, attached) in view of Deininger et al. (US 2018/0334128 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches a covering material for a reserved opening in the upper portion of an automobile safety air bag (Abstract and page 1, lines 3-4). The covering material is a warp-knitted spacer fabric (a hybrid knitted fabric, as claimed); the fabric comprises two surface fabric layers which are parallel to each other and spacer yarns for connecting the two surface fabric layers, the surface fabric layer is composed of first yarn woven in the longitudinal direction and second yarn woven in the longitudinal direction in a front-needle and back-needle periodic transverse moving mode (Abstract). Adjacent woven first yarns are connected left and right through second yarns to form a fabric layer, spacer yarns are woven and connected front and back in the surface fabric layer to form a spacer layer, and the strength of the second yarns is lower than that of the first yarns (Abstract).
Preferably, the second yarn (a first yarn or a second yarn, as claimed) refers to a yarn with a breaking strength of 100 to 220 cN (102 to 224 grams, as calculated by the examiner) (page 1, lines 35-36). Preferably, the second yarn has a breaking strength of 4 ± 2 cN / dtex and a linear density of 25 to 44 dtex (50 to 264 grams, and 23 to 40 denier, as calculated by the examiner) (page 1, lines 35-36).
Preferably, the spacer yarn (a first yarn or a second yarn, as claimed) has a breaking strength of 100 to 300 cN (102 to 306 grams, as calculated by the examiner) (page 2, lines 3-5). Preferably, the spacer yarn has a breaking strength of 4 ± 2 cN / dtex and a linear density of 25 to 55 dtex (64 to 330 grams, and 23 to 50 denier, as calculated by the examiner) (page 2, lines 3-5).
As applied above, the second yarn of Wang meets either of the claimed first yarn or second yarn limitations, and the spacer yarn of Wang meets the other of the claimed first yarn or second yarn limitations. The examiner notes that, in one or both of these events, the first yarn (as claimed) would be present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the second yarn (as claimed).
Wang does not explicitly disclose a composite material comprising a first layer on the hybrid knitted fabric.
However, Deininger teaches wherein FIG. 1 shows a soft touch interior trim (1) for vehicles, comprising: a substrate (2), a soft touch layer (3), and a synthetic skin (4) having: a decorative front layer (4.1) (a first layer, as claimed), and a supporting back layer (4.2) (alternatively, a first layer, as claimed) ([0035]-[0040]). The soft touch layer (3) can be a spacer fabric, or a foam made for example of polyurethane (PU) ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have placed a synthetic skin comprising a decorative front layer and a supporting back layer on the warp-knitted spacer fabric of Wang in order to obtain an aesthetic soft touch interior trim for vehicles that has good behavior when an airbag under the interior trim is triggered, as suggested by Deininger (Abstract, [0035]-[0040] and [0043]).
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches that a beneficial effect of Wang’s application is that compared with the current method of reducing the strength of the material through cutting and weakening, the elimination of the weakening process of the airbag covering material can reduce costs and improve production efficiency (page 2, lines 10-17). Deininger teaches a synthetic skin that has a reduced weight, and a good behavior when the airbag placed under the interior trim is triggered, in order to ensure a reliable release of the airbag (Abstract). The examiner notes that the hybrid knitted fabric and the first layer of Wang in view of Deininger would therefore be capable of being positioned relative to a vehicle airbag and to allow the vehicle airbag to break through the hybrid knitted fabric and the first layer without prescoring or pre-weakening the hybrid knitted fabric and the first layer.
Regarding claims 12-14, Deininger teaches that the synthetic skin (4) can be made for example of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), or thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) ([0044]). Preferably both the decorative front layer (4.1) (a first or second layer as claimed) and the supporting back layer (4.2) (alternatively, a first layer as claimed) are made of the same material family, but they could as well be made of different material families ([0046]). According to an improvement shown in FIG. 3, the supporting back layer (4.2) is a foam ([0057]).
Regarding claims 15-16, in an embodiment, Deininger teaches that, in general, any kind of filler (5) which achieves to modify the surface of the synthetic skin (4) in contact with the soft touch foam layer (3) into a rough surface improves the adherence between both layers (3, 4) ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have similarly provided surface roughness to the soft touch layer when it is in the form of a spacer fabric in order to improve adherence to the materials of the adjacent layers.
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Deininger remains similarly as applied above to claim 10, teaching a composite material comprising a hybrid knitted fabric and a first layer on the hybrid knitted fabric. Deininger further teaches a substrate (2) ([0035]-[0040] and FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Deininger does not explicitly disclose wherein (an additional) spacer fabric layer is positioned on the outer surface of the substrate within the disclosed airbag covers.
However, as claimed in claim 17, the composite material is “disposed relative” to the outer surface of a substrate, which does not require contact between a composite material and a substrate within the same airbag cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the airbag covers over multiple airbags in a vehicle, in which case a composite material in one airbag cover would be disposed relative to a substrate in the airbag cover of an adjacent airbag, as claimed. The examiner notes that the substrate in the airbag cover of the adjacent airbag would have a spacer fabric positioned on it (e.g., layers 2 and 3 in FIGS. 1-4 of Deininger).
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Deininger remains similarly as applied above to claims 11 and 17.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai (JP 2004084090 A, attached) in view of Fujimoto (JP 3255906 B2, attached, wherein US 2002/0119311 A1 is herein relied upon an English equivalent).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Yanai teaches a three-dimensional structural fabric having especially excellent shock safety in the case of use as an air bag (Abstract). The three-dimensional structural fabric is composed of two obverse and reverse layers of knitted or woven fabrics and a connecting yarn for connecting the two layers of the knitted or woven fabrics (Abstract). One of the obverse and reverse knitted or woven fabrics comprises a fiber yarn having ≤3 cN/dtex strength at break (Abstract).
At least one of the front and back two layer knitted or woven fabrics is composed of a fiber yarn (a first yarn or a second yarn, as claimed) having a breaking strength of 3cN/dtex or less, preferably 2.7cN/dtex or less, and more preferably 2.6cN/dtex or less ([0005]). If the breaking strength exceeds 3cN/dtex, the object is not achieved ([0005]). The upper limit of the breaking strength of the fiber yarn is preferably 6N or less, more preferably 5N or less, most preferably 4N or less, and the lower limit thereof is preferably 0.5N or more, more preferably 1N or more ([0005]). As calculated by the examiner, for instance, 1 to 4 N = 102 to 408 grams, which for a breaking strength of 3cN/dtex corresponds to a denier of 30d to 120d, and for a breaking strength of 2.6cN/dtex or less corresponds to a denier of 35d to 139d or more. For instance, for 2N = 204 grams, a breaking strength of about 1.2 cN/dtex or less corresponds to a denier of 150d or more.
Yanai does not explicitly disclose wherein a second yarn has a single end break of 450 grams or lower and a linear density of 20 denier or higher.
However, Yanai teaches that as the connecting yarn (a first or a second yarn, as claimed) for connecting the two front and back layers of the knitted or woven fabric, a filament having a single filament fineness of 20-1000dtex and composed of a polyester fiber such as (most preferably) polytrimethylene terephthalate is preferred (the filament may be a mono-filament or a multi-filament) ([0010]). Yanai teaches that a method for producing a polytrimethylene terephthalate fiber is described in, for example, Japanese Patent Application No. 522304/2000 ([0015]). The examiner notes that Japanese Patent Application No. 522304/2000 is published as JP 3255906 B2 to Fujimoto, and that US 2002/0119311 A1 is relied upon herein as an English equivalent.
Fujimoto teaches a polyester fiber comprising 90% or more by weight of a poly(trimethylene terephthalate), and showing (among other characteristics) a tenacity of 3 g/d or more (Abstract). Although the total size of the yarn is not restricted, it is usually from 5 to 200 d (denier), preferably from 20 to 150 d ([0029]). As calculated by the examiner, for a tenacity of 3 g/d or more, 20d corresponds to 60 grams or more, 40d corresponds to 120 grams or more, 60d corresponds to 180 grams or more, and 80d corresponds to 240 grams or more.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used a poly(trimethylene terephthalate) fibers having a tenacity of 3 g/d or more and a denier of from 20 to 150 d (corresponding to a single end break of 60 grams or more) as the connecting yarns of Yanai because Yanai identifies the method that produces such yarns as a method for producing polytrimethylene terephthalate fibers, and because Yanai teaches that the connecting yarns are most preferably polytrimethylene terephthalate fibers ([0010] and [0015] of Yanai; also see Abstract and [0029] of Fujimoto).
As applied above, the fiber yarn having a breaking strength of 3cN/dtex or less meets either of the claimed first yarn or second yarn limitations, and the connecting yarn meets the other of the claimed first yarn or second yarn limitations. The examiner notes that, in one or both of these events, the first yarn (as claimed) would be present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the second yarn (as claimed).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Yanai in view of Fujimoto remains similarly as applied above to claim 1.
Yanai in view of Fujimoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second yams are solid yarns or have hollow cross-sections.
However, Yanai teaches wherein the form of a fiber may be uniform in the length direction or may be thick and thin, and the cross section may also be a polygonal shape such as a round shape, a triangular shape, an L shape, a T shape, a Y shape, a W shape, an octalobal shape, a flat shape, or a dog bone shape, a multilobal shape, a hollow shape, or an indefinite shape ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the first and second fibers in any of these shapes and to have considered the shapes not described as hollow to be solid shapes.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Yanai in view of Fujimoto remains similarly as applied above to claims 1, 2 and 4, except that, more specifically, the fiber yarn having a breaking strength of 3cN/dtex meets the claimed first yarn limitation, and the connecting yarn meets the claimed second yarn limitation.
Yanai in view of Fujimoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the first yam is present in an amount that is greater than or equal to an amount of the second yarn.
However, Yanai teaches that the fiber yarn having a breaking strength of 3cN/dtex or less (the first yarn as claimed) is used in one knitted or woven fabric constituting the front and back two layer knitted or woven fabric, and the content of the fiber yarn in the one knitted or woven fabric is preferably 50% by mass or more, more preferably 70% by mass or more, and most preferably 80% by mass or more ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the fiber yarn having a breaking strength of 3cN/dtex or less (the first yarn as claimed) in an amount great than or equal to the amount of the connecting yarn (the claimed second yarn) because Yanai teaches that the content of the fiber yarn having a breaking strength of 3cN/dtex or less (the first yarn as claimed) in the fabric constituting the front or back layers is most preferably 80% by mass or more, because in an embodiment Yanai teaches that at least one of the front and back two layer knitted or woven fabrics is composed of this this fiber yarn, and because the front and back layers are the main layers in the two layer knit fabric.
Regarding claim 7, Yanai teaches that a fiber yarn constituting the other knitted or woven fabric has a breaking strength of preferably not less than 3cN/dtex, more preferably not less than 3.5cN/dtex/dtex, most preferably not less than 4cN/dtex and not more than 10cN/dtex ([0009]). Examples of the type and form of such a fiber yarn include those exemplified in the fiber yarn having a low breaking strength ([0009]). With respect to this yarn, Yanai teaches that from the viewpoint of weather resistance and the like, the type of the fiber yarn is preferably a synthetic fiber, particularly a polyester-based synthetic fiber such as polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, or polytrimethylene terephthalate, and other examples thereof include a natural fiber such as cotton or wool, cupra rayon, viscose rayon, an acetate fiber, a polyolefin fiber, an acrylic fiber, and a polyamide fiber such as nylon 6 or nylon 66 ([0006]).
Regarding claim 9, the examiner notes that the single end break of the fiber yarn having a breaking strength of 3cN/dtex or less (a first yarn as claimed) may range from 1 to 4 N = 102 to 408 grams, and may therefore be higher than that of the connecting yarn (a second yarn, as claimed), which may have a single end break as low as 60 grams (for a tenacity of 3 g/d and a denier of 20d).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Worrell whose telephone number is (571)270-7728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Kevin Worrell/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789