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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
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 1-17 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 valves” in line 8 where the Examiner is unclear which valves are being referred back to. Claim 1 already introduces at least one proportional valve and upon review of the specification, the phrase “the valves” in line of claim1 will refer back to the at least one proportional valve.
Claim 1 recites “valve regulator drivers” in line 14 which lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear to the Examiner. For examination purposes the phrase “valve regulator drivers” will be treated as “at least one valve regulator driver [[drivers]]”.
Claim 1 recites “the measurements and control variables” in line 17 where the Examiner is unclear which measurements and control variables are being referred back to due to improper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the phrase “the measurements and control variables” will be treated as “[[the]] a plurality of measurements and a plurality of control variables”.
Claim 3 recites “the proportional valves” which is unclear which other proportional valves of the originally introduced “at least one proportional valve” of claim 1. Applicant is advised to keep the claim language consistent and therefore the phrase “the proportional valves” of claim 3 will be treated as “the at least one proportional valves”.
Claim 7 recites “the proportional valves” which is unclear which other proportional valves of the originally introduced “at least one proportional valve” of claim 1. Applicant is advised to keep the claim language consistent and therefore the phrase “the proportional valves” of claim 7 will be treated as “the at least one proportional valves”.
Claim 14 recites “valve regulator drivers” in line 9 which lacks proper antecedent basis and is unclear to the Examiner. For examination purposes the phrase “valve regulator drivers” will be treated as “at least one valve regulator driver [[drivers]]”.
Claim 14 recites “the measurements and control variables” in line 11 where the Examiner is unclear which measurements and control variables are being referred back to due to improper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the phrase “the measurements and control variables” will be treated as “[[the]] a plurality of measurements and a plurality of control variables”.
Claim 16 recites “the valves” in line 8 where the Examiner is unclear which valves are being referred back to. Claim 1 already introduces at least one proportional valve and upon review of the specification, the phrase “the valves” in line of claim1 will refer back to the at least one proportional valve.
Claim 16 recites “instruct pump regulator drivers” and “valve regulator drivers” in lines 13-14 which each lack proper antecedent basis and are unclear to the Examiner. For examination purposes the phrase “instruct pump regulator drivers” will be treated as “instruct at least one pump regulator driver[[s]]” and “valve regulator drivers” will be treated as “at least one valve regulator driver [[drivers]]”.
Claim 16 recites “the measurements and control variables” in line 17 where the Examiner is unclear which measurements and control variables are being referred back to due to improper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the phrase “the measurements and control variables” will be treated as “[[the]] a plurality of measurements and a plurality of control variables”.
Claim 17 recites ““the measurements and control variables” in line 11 where the Examiner is unclear which measurements and control variables are being referred back to due to improper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the phrase “the measurements and control variables” will be treated as “the plurality of measurements and the plurality of control variables”.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-13, and 15 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0051946 (Lee hereinafter) in view of US 2020/0040458 (Ma hereinafter) in view of US 2005/0225201 (Vogeley hereinafter) in view of US 2007/0278319 (Jenkins hereinafter) and further in view of US 2017/0159650 (Richter hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a micropump (Figures 1 and 2) that discloses an inlet terminal for fluid input (Inlet at 12) and an outlet terminal for fluid output (Outlet at 14); the microfluidic conduit that fluidly connects the inlet terminal with the outlet terminal (Evident from Figures 1 and 2); at least one pump arranged in the microfluidic conduit for pumping the fluid through the microfluidic conduit at a flow rate (Pumps 16/18); at least one valve arranged in the microfluidic conduit (Valves 24/26), the valves being configured to adjust the flow rate of the fluid by modifying their passageways (Inherent operation of a valve); a controller able to instruct at least one pump and the at least one valve to modify a pumping power of the pumps and passageway of the valves (Controller 20 in inherent control provided to the pumps and valves per ¶ 43 and 46).
Lee is silent with respect that the at least one valve is a proportional valve.
However, Ma teaches a pumping system that discloses the use of proportional valves (¶ 30 with valves 250-258).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valves of Lee with the proportional valves of Ma to allow for precise flow adjustments.
Lee is silent with respect to a flow sensor arranged in the microfluidic conduit, the flow sensor being configured to measure the flow rate within the microfluidic conduit; and a controller that is configured to receive the flow rate measured by the flow sensor, compare the measured flow rate with a predefined flow rate and instruct at least one of the at least one pump and the at least one valve to modify a pumping power of the pumps and the passageway of the valves, respectively, based on the result of the comparison.
However, Vogeley teaches a piezoelectric pump system that discloses a flow sensor arranged in the microfluidic conduit (Sensor 112-3D in Figure 3D with ¶ 65), the flow sensor being configured to measure the flow rate within the microfluidic conduit (Evident from Figure 3D); and a controller that is configured to receive the flow rate measured by the flow sensor, compare the measured flow rate with a predefined flow rate and instruct at least one of the at least one pump and the at least one valve to modify a pumping power of the pumps and the passageway of the valves, respectively, based on the result of the comparison (¶ 65 of Vogeley teaches that the sensor detects the value and dynamically drives the pump based on the value sensed where the controller of Lee would receive the sensed values and compare those values to preloaded or matching pump/valve control values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the micropump of Lee with the fluid monitoring and control as taught by Vogeley to ensure accurate fluid delivery.
Lee is silent with respect to the controller incorporating fuzzy logic.
However, Jenkins teaches a control scheme for a proportional vale that utilizes fuzzy logic (¶ 23). The resultant combination would be such that there is a controller incorporating fuzzy logic that is configured to receive the flow rate measured by the flow sensor, compare the measured flow rate with a predefined flow rate and instruct pump regulator drivers of the at least one pump and valve regulators of the at least one proportional valve to proportionally modify a pumping power of the pumps and the passageway of the valves, respectively, based on the result of the comparison and the application of the fuzzy logic to the measurements and control variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Lee with the fuzzy logic of Jenkins to control the proportional valve to increase the flexibility of the controller operations with respect to the variables sensed during operation.
Lee is silent with respect to base the comparison so as to minimize the difference between the flow rate measured and the predefined flow rate.
However, Richter teaches a micropump control system that discloses the use of flow rate sensors and comparing the flow rate to a desired flow rate (¶ 28 and 110). The resultant combination would be such that the control system of Lee and Vogeley would alter the system aspects such that a comparison so as to minimize the difference between the flow rate measured and the predefined flow rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control of Lee/Vogeley with the teachings of Richter to ensure that the pump of Lee is performing as required.
Regarding claim 2, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, Jenkins, and Richter would further disclose a plurality of proportional valves connected in series to each other along a portion of the microfluidic conduit (Lee Figure 3 shows 100 in series).
Regarding claim 4, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, Jenkins, and Richter would further disclose a plurality of micropumps connected in series for pumping the fluid through the microfluidic conduit (Figures 1-3 of Lee).
Regarding claim 5, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, Jenkins, and Richter would further disclose that the at least one proportional valve is arranged in the microfluidic conduit between the flow sensor and the outlet terminal (Combination where the sensor of Vogeley is within the pump chamber [102] and therefore between the conduit and outlet of Lee).
Regarding claim 6, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, Jenkins, and Richter would further disclose a main body at least partially housing the microfluidic conduit (Main body 10 of Lee) and wherein the at least one pump, the flow sensor, the controller and the at least proportional one valve are removably coupled to the main body (All of these bodies are fully and physically capable of being removed from the body 10 of Lee).
Regarding claim 7, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, Jenkins, and Richter would further disclose that the pumps are piezoelectric micropumps (Lee ¶ 42-46) and the proportional valves are piezoelectric valves (Lee ¶ 46 and ¶ 30 of Ma).
Regarding claim 9, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, Jenkins, and Richter would further disclose that a pressure sensor arranged in the microfluidic conduit (¶ 65 of Vogeley), the pressure sensor being configured to measure a pressure of the fluid flowing through the microfluidic conduit (¶ 51 with Figure 1A of Richter).
Regarding claim 10, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, Jenkins, and Richter would further disclose that a temperature sensor arranged in the microfluidic conduit (¶ 65 of Vogeley), the temperature sensor being configured to measure a temperature of the fluid flowing through the microfluidic conduit (¶ 60 with Figure 1A of Richter).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches a microfluidic pump system hat discloses an open fluid circuit (Evident from Figures 1-3) where the structure of claim 1 taught by Lee, Ma, Vogeley, Jenkins, and Richter is rejected in detail above in the rejection in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches a microfluidic pump and method of controlling the flow rate based on pump actuation and valve openings where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, and Richter taught in claim 1 is rejected in detail above in claim 1. The combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, and Richter would therefore teach the method of pumping, by the at least one pump, the fluid through the microfluidic conduit at a flow rate (Inherent of pumps 16/18 of Lee); measuring, by the fluid sensor, the flow rate of the fluid within the microfluidic conduit (Sensor 112-3D of Vogeley per ¶ 65); comparing, by the controller, the measured flow rate with a predefined flow rate (Inherent control operation of the controller 20 in Lee receiving the sensed data of Vogeley and adjusting the pump operation with the flow rate data of Richter) and; instructing, by the controller, at least one of the pump regulator drivers of the at least one pump and the valve regulator drivers of the at least one proportional valve to modify a pumping power of the pumps and a passageway of the proportional valves, respectively, based on the result of the comparison and the application of the fuzzy logic to the measurements and the control variables (Resultant combination between Lee, Ma, Vogeley, and Jenkins), so as to minimize the difference between the flow rate measured and the predefined flow rate (¶ 28 and 110 of Richter with the control of Lee and Vogeley).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches a micropump that discloses an inlet terminal for fluid input (Inlet at 12) and an outlet terminal for fluid output (Outlet at 14); the microfluidic conduit that fluidly connects the inlet terminal with the outlet terminal (Evident from Figures 1 and 2); at least one pump arranged in the microfluidic conduit for pumping the fluid through the microfluidic conduit at a flow rate (Pumps 16/18); at least one valve arranged in the microfluidic conduit (Valves 24/26), the valves being configured to adjust the flow rate of the fluid by modifying their passageways (Inherent operation of the valve); and a controller (¶ 43 and 46).
Lee is silent with respect to the valve is a proportional valve.
However, Ma teaches a pumping system that discloses the use of proportional valves (¶ 30 with valves 250-258).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valves of Lee with the proportional valves of Ma to allow for precise flow adjustments.
Lee is silent with respect to a flow sensor arranged in the microfluidic conduit, the flow sensor being configured to measure the flow rate within the microfluidic conduit; controller that is configured to receive the flow rate measured by the flow sensor, compare the measured flow rate with a predefined flow rate and instruct the at least one pump and the at least one proportional valve to proportionally modify a pumping power of the pumps and the passageway of the valves.
However, Vogeley teaches a piezoelectric pump system that discloses a flow sensor arranged in the microfluidic conduit (Sensor 112-3D in Figure 3D with ¶ 65), the flow sensor being configured to measure the flow rate within the microfluidic conduit (Evident from Figure 3D); and a controller that is configured to receive the flow rate measured by the flow sensor, compare the measured flow rate with a predefined flow rate and instruct at least one of the at least one pump and the at least one valve to modify a pumping power of the pumps and the passageway of the valves, respectively, based on the result of the comparison (¶ 65 of Vogeley teaches that the sensor detects the value and dynamically drives the pump based on the value sensed where the controller of Lee would receive the sensed values and compare those values to preloaded or matching pump/valve control values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the micropump of Lee with the fluid monitoring and control as taught by Vogeley to ensure accurate fluid delivery.
Lee is silent with respect to the controller incorporating fuzzy logic.
However, Jenkins teaches a control scheme for a proportional vale that utilizes fuzzy logic (¶ 23). The resultant combination would be such that there is a controller incorporating fuzzy logic that is configured to receive the flow rate measured by the flow sensor, compare the measured flow rate with a predefined flow rate and instruct pump regulator drivers of the at least one pump and valve regulators of the at least one proportional valve to proportionally modify a pumping power of the pumps and the passageway of the valves, respectively, based on the result of the comparison and the application of the fuzzy logic to the measurements and control variables.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the controller of Lee with the fuzzy logic of Jenkins to control the proportional valve to increase the flexibility of the controller operations with respect to the variables sensed during operation.
Lee is silent with respect to base the comparison so as to minimize the difference between the flow rate measured and the predefined flow rate
However, Richter teaches Richter teaches a micropump control system that discloses the use of flow rate sensors and comparing the flow rate to a desired flow rate (¶ 28 and 110). The resultant combination would be such that the control system of Lee and Vogeley would alter the system aspects such that a comparison so as to minimize the difference between the flow rate measured and the predefined flow rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control of Lee/Vogeley with the teachings of Richter to ensure that the pump of Lee is performing as required.
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches a microfluidic pump and method of controlling the flow rate based on pump actuation and valve openings where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, and Richter taught in claim 1 is rejected in detail above in claim 1. The combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, and Richter would therefore teach the method of pumping, by the at least one pump, the fluid through the microfluidic conduit at a flow rate (Inherent of pumps 16/18 of Lee); measuring, by the fluid sensor, the flow rate of the fluid within the microfluidic conduit (Sensor 112-3D of Vogeley per ¶ 65); comparing, by the controller, the measured flow rate with a predefined flow rate (Inherent control operation of the controller 20 in Lee receiving the sensed data of Vogeley and adjusting the pump operation with the flow rate data of Richter) and; instructing, by the controller, the pump regulator drivers of the at least one pump and valve regulators of the at least one proportional valve to modify a pumping power of the pumps and a passageway of the proportional valves, respectively, based on the result of the comparison and the application of the fuzzy logic to the measurements and control variables (Resultant combination between Lee, Ma, Vogeley, and Jenkins), so as to minimize the difference between the flow rate measured and the predefined flow rate (¶ 28 and 110 of Richter with the control of Lee and Vogeley).
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0051946 (Lee) in view of US 2020/0040458 (Ma) in view of US 2005/0225201 (Vogeley) in view of US 2007/0278319 (Jenkins) in view of US 2017/0159650 (Richter) and further in view of US 2015/0219089 (Glauber hereinafter).
Regarding claim 3, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, Jenkins, and Richter further discloses that the proportional valves are pneumatic valves (¶ 30 of Ma). The combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, and Richter is silent with respect that the microfluidic flow rate control device comprises a respective pneumatic pump fluidly connected to each one of the pneumatic valves, the pneumatic pumps being configured to proportionally modify the passageway of the corresponding pneumatic valves based on the result of the comparison.
However, Glauber teaches a pneumatic operated pump system that discloses pneumatic valves and the microfluidic flow rate control device comprises a respective pneumatic pump fluidly connected to each one of the pneumatic valves (Valves 42 and 46 in Figure 1 with pumps 24 and 52), the pneumatic pumps being configured to modify the passageway of the corresponding pneumatic valves based on the result of the comparison (Evident of combination to drive the valves to alter the passageway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve drive of Lee/Ma with the pneumatic valve drive of Glauber via simple substitution to obtain the well-known and predictable result of controlling the opening and closing of valves.
Regarding claim 15, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 14 where the combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, and Richter further discloses that the proportional valves are pneumatic valves (¶ 30 of Ma). The combination of Lee, Ma, Vogeley, and Richter is silent with respect that the pneumatic valve actuated by a pneumatic pump fluidly connected to the at least one proportional valve, and the step of instructing the at least one valve to proportionally modify its passageway based on the result of the comparison comprises instructing the corresponding pneumatic pumps to proportionally adjust the passageway of the pneumatic valves based on the result of the comparison.
However, Glauber teaches a pneumatic operated pump system that discloses a pneumatic valve actuated by a pneumatic pump fluidly connected to the at least one proportional valve (Valves 42 and 46 in Figure 1 with pumps 24 and 52), and the step of instructing the at least one valve to proportionally modify its passageway based on the result of the comparison comprises instructing the corresponding pneumatic pumps to proportionally adjust the passageway of the pneumatic valves based on the result of the comparison (Evident of combination to drive the valves to alter the passageway).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve drive of Lee/Ma with the pneumatic valve drive of Glauber via simple substitution to obtain the well-known and predictable result of controlling the opening and closing of valves.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0051946 (Lee) in view of US 2020/0040458 (Ma) in view of US 2005/0225201 (Vogeley) in view of US 2007/0278319 (Jenkins) in view of US 2017/0159650 (Richter) and further in view of US 6158269 (Dorenkott hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a flow resistance device arranged in the microfluidic conduit that is configured to introduce a constant pressure drop in the fluid flow flowing through the microfluidic conduit.
However, Dorenkott teaches pump system that discloses a flow resistance device that is configured to introduce a constant pressure drop in the fluid flow flowing through the conduit (Figure 2, body 72 per Column 4 Lines 21-37). The resultant combination would place the accumulator into the microfluidic conduit of Lee.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microfluidic conduit of Lee with the accumulator of Dorenkott to minimize pressure variance and provide a constant pressure source.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0051946 (Lee) in view of US 2020/0040458 (Ma) in view of US 2005/0225201 (Vogeley) in view of US 2007/0278319 (Jenkins) in view of US 2017/0159650 (Richter) and further in view of US 2013/0209278 (Locke hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, Lee’s modified teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a graphical user interface communicatively coupled to at least one sensor of the microfluidic flow rate control device such that the graphical user interface is configured to display at least one of a flow rate, a pressure and a temperature of the fluid flowing through the microfluidic conduit measured by the at least one sensor.
However, Locke teaches a disc pump that discloses a graphical user interface communicatively coupled to at least one sensor of the microfluidic flow rate control device such that the graphical user interface is configured to display at least one of a flow rate, a pressure and a temperature of the fluid flowing through the microfluidic conduit measured by the at least one sensor (¶ 91 with the sensed data of Vogeley being displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump system of Lee/Ma/Vogeley/Richter with the graphical user interface of Locke to allow for the user to directly observe the pump data and look for anomalies.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4874016 (Tseng hereinafter) in view of US 2012/0051946 (Lee) in view of US 2020/0040458 (Ma) in view of US 2005/0225201 (Vogeley) in view of US 2007/0278319 (Jenkins) in view of US 2017/0159650 (Richter).
Regarding claim 12, Tseng teaches closed loop fluidic system (Column 3 Lines 15-35) but Tseng is silent with respect to the structure of claim 1.
However, the combination of Lee and Vogeley disclose the structure of claim 1’s microfluidic device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pump and valve structures of Tseng with the teaches of Lee/Ma/Vogeley/Jenkins/Richter to allow for pump data to be sensed and accurate pumping based on the sensed data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, the newly added Jenkins reference (US 2007/0278319) has been applied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762