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 § 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michalke et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0038875).
Regarding claim 1, Michalke et al. disclose a vehicle floor silencer 200 comprising: a floor 34 including a sheet of insulating material 208 configured to be mounted to, and conform to, a vehicle support liner 12 (see Figures 1 and 5A-5B; Paragraphs 21 and 36); and a silencer wall 206 protruding from the floor 34 and at least partially defining an opening 214 through the floor 34 so as to accommodate a shift lever boot 56 (see Figures 1 and 5A-5B; Paragraphs 21 and 36), the silencer wall 206 being positioned to separate a wire harness from the opening 214 (see Figures 1 and 5A-5B). The silencer wall 206 is positioned such that it is capable of separating a wire harness from the opening, meeting the language of the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 21, Michalke et al. disclose the floor silencer system of claim 1, wherein the silencer wall 206 blocks movement of the wire harness toward the shift lever boot 56 while permitting movement away from the shift lever boot 56 (see Figures 1 and 5A-5B; Paragraphs 25 and 36). The silencer wall 206 prevents a wire harness that is positioned outside the opening 214 from getting closer to the shift lever boot 56 by blocking access to the shift lever boot 56 (see Figure 1).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US Pat 4,991,457).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a vehicle floor silencer comprising: a floor 16 including a sheet of insulating material 60 configured to be mounted to, and conform to, a vehicle support liner 14 (see Figures 1 and 4; Col. 2, lines 42-59); and a silencer wall 33 protruding from the floor 16 and at least partially defining an opening through the floor 16 so as to accommodate a shift lever boot 24 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 3, lines 13-33), the silencer wall 33 being positioned to separate a wire harness from the opening (see Figures 1-2). The silencer wall 33 is positioned such that it is capable of separating a wire harness from the opening, meeting the language of the claim limitation.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalke et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0038875).
Regarding claim 2, Michalke et al. disclose the vehicle floor silencer of claim 1.
Michalke et al. fail to disclose the floor and the silencer wall are formed as a monolithic part.
Michalke et al. disclose a sound shield 224 that can be comprised of multiple panels or a monolithic structure (see Paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to monolithically construct the floor and silencer wall, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Michalke et al., to reduce the cost of assembly and increase the effectiveness of the silencer wall.
Regarding claim 3, Michalke et al. disclose the vehicle floor silencer of claim 2, wherein the silencer wall comprises a rectangular geometry (see Figures 5A-5B; Paragraphs 36-37).
Regarding claim 4, Michalke et al. disclose the vehicle floor silencer of claim 3.
Michalke et al. fail to disclose a height of the silencer wall is between 4 and 20 times a thickness of the floor.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct height of the silencer wall of Michalke et al. to be between four and twenty times a thickness of the floor, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the silencer wall of Michalke et al. would not perform differently by having a height between four and twenty times a thickness of the floor.
Regarding claim 5, Michalke et al. disclose the vehicle floor silencer of claim 2, wherein the silencer wall 206 comprises a first side surface 218 extending from the floor 34 to a top surface of the silencer wall 206, wherein the first side surface 218 is located opposite the silencer wall 206 from the opening 214, and the first side surface 218 is oriented at an obtuse angle with respect to the floor 34 (see Figures 5A-5B; Paragraphs 36-37). The silencer wall 206 is designed to reflect sound energy back toward the engine and the first side surface is shown to have an obtuse angle relative to the floor in Figures 5A-B to accomplish that (see Paragraph 36).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michalke et al. in view of Hoshing et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0039569).
Regarding claim 6, Michalke et al. disclose the vehicle floor silencer of claim 1.
Michalke et al. fail to disclose the floor silencer comprises a synthetic fiber/urethane mixture.
Hoshing et al. disclose a floor 18 having a silencer wall 220 formed in the floor 18 to accommodate a wire harness 21 and at least partially define a path for the wire harness 21 to secure the wire harness 21 (see Figures 4A-B; Paragraphs 22-23 and 28-29). The floor silencer is molded from a synthetic fiber/urethane mix (see Paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the floor silencer of Michalke et al. from a synthetic fiber/urethane mix, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Hoshing et al., to use a material that absorbs sound and vibration well and can be easily formed.
Claims 8-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Pat 4,991,457) in view of KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0039569).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the vehicle floor silencer of claim 1.
Chen fails to disclose the silencer wall at least partially defines a path for the wire harness.
KR 200462141 discloses a shift lever having a wire harness 50 to provide a light source 21 to the shift lever that makes it aesthetically pleasing and provides ease of operation (see Figure 1; Paragraph 41).
Hoshing et al. disclose a floor 18 having a silencer wall 220 formed in the floor 18 to accommodate a wire harness 21 and at least partially define a path for the wire harness 21 to secure the wire harness 21 (see Figures 4A-B; Paragraphs 22-23 and 28-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a wire harness to the shift lever of Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a light source that make the shift lever aesthetically pleasing and provides ease of operation, as taught by KR 200462141.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the silencer wall of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141, to define a path for the wire harness, with a reasonable expectation of success, to secure the wire harness and protect the wire harness, as taught by Hoshing et al..
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses a floor silencer system for a vehicle, the floor silencer system comprising: a support liner 16 (see Figures 4-6; Col. 2, lines 42-59); a floor silencer 18 comprising a floor 60 at least partially covering the support liner 16 and a silencer wall 26 protruding from the floor 60, the floor 60 extends along and conforms to the support liner 16 and the silencer wall 26 is disposed at an opening in the floor silencer 18 (see Figures 1-2; Col. 2, lines 60-66; Col. 4, lines 11-29); a shift lever boot 24 extending at least partially into the opening (see Figure 4; Col. 3, lines 46-59).
Chen fails to disclose a wire harness extending across the floor silencer and separated from the shift lever boot by the silencer wall.
KR 200462141 discloses a shift lever having a wire harness 50 to provide a light source 21 to the shift lever that makes it aesthetically pleasing and provides ease of operation (see Figure 1; Paragraph 41).
Hoshing et al. disclose a floor 18 having a silencer wall 220 formed in the floor 18 to accommodate a wire harness 21 and at least partially define a path for the wire harness 21 to secure the wire harness 21 (see Figures 4A-B; Paragraphs 22-23 and 28-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a wire harness to the shift lever of Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a light source that make the shift lever aesthetically pleasing and provides ease of operation, as taught by KR 200462141.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the silencer wall of Chen to separate a wire harness from the shift lever boot opening, with a reasonable expectation of success, to protect the wire harness from noise and vibration that could cause fatigue on the wire harness, as taught by Hoshing et al..
Regarding claim 10, Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., discloses the floor silencer system of claim 9.
Chen, as modified by Hoshing et al., fails to disclose an unsecured portion of the wire harness extends across the floor silencer.
Hoshing et al. disclose a floor 18 having a silencer wall 220 formed in the floor 18 to accommodate a wire harness 21 and at least partially define a path for the wire harness 21 to secure the wire harness 21 (see Figures 4A-B; Paragraphs 22-23 and 28-29). A portion of the wire harness 21 that extends in the floor silencer 220 is unsecured by any ties or fasteners to enable a rapid, efficient and simple installation procedure (see Paragraphs 22-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend an unsecured portion of the wire harness across the floor silencer of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to simplify the installation procedure, as taught by Hoshing et al..
Regarding claim 11, Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., discloses the floor silencer system of claim 9, wherein the support liner 16 extends from the floor silencer 18 at least partially into the opening (see Figure 4; Col. 2, line 67-Col. 3, line 33).
Regarding claim 12, Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., discloses the floor silencer system of claim 11, wherein the shift lever boot 24 extends from the support liner 16 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 3, lines 13-33).
Regarding claim 14, Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., discloses the floor silencer system of claim 9.
Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., fail to disclose a height of the silencer wall is between one and six times an outer diameter of the wire harness.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct height of the silencer wall of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., to be between one and six times an outer diameter of the wire harness, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the silencer wall of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., would not perform differently by having a height between one and six times an outer diameter of the wire harness.
Regarding claim 15, Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al, discloses the floor silencer system of claim 9.
Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al, fail to disclose a height of the silencer wall is between four and twenty times a thickness of the floor.
However, section 2144.04 IV. A. of the MPEP sets forth the Federal Circuit case of In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), which held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Therefore, it 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 to construct height of the silencer wall of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., to be between four and twenty times a thickness of the floor, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this instance, the silencer wall of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., would not perform differently by having a height between four and twenty times a thickness of the floor.
Regarding claim 16, Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., discloses the floor silencer system of claim 9, wherein the silencer wall 26 comprises a first side surface extending from the floor 16 to a top surface of the silencer wall 26, the first side surface is located opposite the silencer wall 26 from the opening (see Figures 4-5 and annotated Figure 5 below; Col. 2, lines 60-66; Col. 3, lines 46-59).
PNG
media_image2.png
318
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., discloses the floor silencer system of claim 16, wherein the silencer wall 26 comprises a second side surface extending from the floor to the top surface of the silencer wall 26, the second side surface is located opposite the silencer wall 26 from the first side surface and the second side surface leans toward the opening (see Figures 4-5 and annotated Figure 5 above; Col. 2, lines 42-66).
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses a method comprising: coupling a vehicle floor silencer 18 to a vehicle support liner 16 (see Figures 1-4; Col. 2, lines 41-66); supporting the vehicle floor silencer 18 with the vehicle support liner 16 (see Figures 1 and 4; Col. 2, lines 41-66); coupling a shift lever boot 24 to the vehicle support liner 16 such that the shift lever boot 24 extends at least partially into an opening disposed in the vehicle floor silencer 18 (see Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 2 above; Col. 41-66). A silencer wall 26 protrudes from a floor 60 of the vehicle floor silencer 18 (see Figure 4; Col. 3, lines 13-33).
Chen fails to disclose separating an unsecured portion of a wire harness from the shift lever boot with a silencer wall protruding from a floor of the vehicle floor silencer.
KR 200462141 discloses a shift lever having a wire harness 50 to provide a light source 21 to the shift lever that makes it aesthetically pleasing and provides ease of operation (see Figure 1; Paragraph 41).
Hoshing et al. disclose a floor 18 having a silencer wall 220 formed in the floor 18 to accommodate a wire harness 21 and at least partially define a path for the wire harness 21 to secure the wire harness 21 (see Figures 4A-B; Paragraphs 22-23 and 28-29). A portion of the wire harness 21 that extends in the floor silencer 220 is unsecured by any ties or fasteners to enable a rapid, efficient and simple installation procedure (see Paragraphs 22-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a wire harness to the shift lever of Chen, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide a light source that make the shift lever aesthetically pleasing and provides ease of operation, as taught by KR 200462141.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the silencer wall of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141, to separate a wire harness from the shift lever boot with the silencer wall protruding from a floor of the vehicle floor silencer, with a reasonable expectation of success, to protect the wire harness from noise and vibration that could cause fatigue on the wire harness, as taught by Hoshing et al..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend an unsecured portion of the wire harness across the floor silencer of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, to simplify the installation procedure, as taught by Hoshing et al..
Regarding claim 22, Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., disclose the floor silencer system of claim 9.
Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., fails to disclose the silencer wall is disposed between the wire harness and the shift lever boot when the floor silencer is mounted to the vehicle support liner.
Hoshing et al. disclose a floor 18 having a silencer wall 220 formed in the floor 18 to accommodate a wire harness 21 and at least partially define a path for the wire harness 21 to secure the wire harness 21 (see Figures 4A-B; Paragraphs 22-23 and 28-29). A portion of the wire harness 21 that extends in the floor silencer 220 is unsecured by any ties or fasteners to enable a rapid, efficient and simple installation procedure (see Paragraphs 22-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the silencer wall of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., between the wire harness and the shift lever boot when the floor silencer is mounted to the vehicle support liner, with a reasonable expectation of success, to simplify the installation procedure, as taught by Hoshing et al., and protect the wire harness from excess movement by the shift lever boot.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., in view of Michalke et al..
Regarding claim 13, Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., discloses the floor silencer system of claim 9.
Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., fails to disclose the floor and the silencer wall are formed as a monolithic part.
Michalke et al. disclose a sound shield 224 that can be comprised of multiple panels or a monolithic structure (see Paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to monolithically construct the floor and silencer wall of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Michalke et al., to reduce the cost of assembly and increase the effectiveness of the silencer wall.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al. twice, in view of Michalke et al..
Regarding claim 19, Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al. twice, discloses the method of claim 18, further comprising the silencer wall 26 at least partially defines the opening. The silencer wall 26 is positioned against the shift lever boot 24 at the edge of the opening (see Figure 4).
Chen, as modified by KR 200462131 and Hoshing et al. twice, fail to disclose disposing the silencer wall between the unsecured portion of the wire harness and the shift lever boot and the floor and the silencer wall are formed as a monolithic part.
Hoshing et al. disclose a floor 18 having a silencer wall 220 formed in the floor 18 to accommodate a wire harness 21 and at least partially define a path for the wire harness 21 to secure the wire harness 21 (see Figures 4A-B; Paragraphs 22-23 and 28-29). A portion of the wire harness 21 that extends in the floor silencer 220 is unsecured by any ties or fasteners to enable a rapid, efficient and simple installation procedure (see Paragraphs 22-23).
Michalke et al. disclose a sound shield 224 that can be comprised of multiple panels or a monolithic structure (see Paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to dispose the silencer wall of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al. twice, between the unsecured portion of the wire harness and the shift lever boot, with a reasonable expectation of success, to simplify the installation procedure, as taught by Hoshing et al., and protect the wire harness from excess movement by the shift lever boot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to monolithically construct the floor and silencer wall of Chen, as modified by KR 200462141 and Hoshing et al. thrice, with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Michalke et al., to reduce the cost of assembly and increase the effectiveness of the silencer wall.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed February 26, 2026, with respect to claims 1-6 and 8 as being unpatentable over Michalke et al. (US PG Pub 2009/0038875) and Chen (US Pat 4,991,457) have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. While Examiner agrees that Michalke et al. and Chen do not disclose a wire harness, the claim language does not positively recite a wire harness, but merely states that a position of the silencer wall separates a wire harness from the opening. Examiner further maps the reference to the claim language in the rejections presented above and maintains the rejection as outlined there.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 9-19 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, as modified by Hoshing et al. (US PG Pub 2021/0039569) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of KR 200462141. KR 200462141 discloses a wire harness used in a shift lever and provides a motivation for routing a wire harness away from an opening for a shift lever boot, which Applicant argued had been missing in the previous Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kubo (JP 2018016195) disclose a vehicle floor having a shift lever boot and a silencer wall. Koyasu et al. (JP 2008049993) disclose a vehicle floor having a shift lever boot and a silencer wall.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA M CONDO whose telephone number is (571)272-9415. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-3pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amy Weisberg can be reached at (571) 270-5500. 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.
/VERONICA M CONDO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612
Prosecution Insights