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 .
Specification
The abstract is objected because it is worded throughout making it confusion what is actually being disclosed. Applicant is requested to amend a way to help readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
In this case, the amend abstract is worded, for examples, see (emphasis added) “A forming process and a manufacturing device producing paper container blanks perform two sequential cutting operations on a continuous paper roll, in which a longitudinal cutting step serves as the first cutting, followed by a front-and-rear directional cutting serving as the secondary cutting. This workflow enables continuous, automated production of paper container blanks and supports integration with downstream equipment to achieve unmanned operation. The dual-cutting approach significantly reduces edge waste. The manufacturing device includes a secondary cutting mechanism and a die arrangement configured such that the initial longitudinal cutting forms the left and right edges of each blank while keeping adjacent blanks connected at their front and rear ends. This configuration eliminates waste edges between adjacent blanks and provides an efficient and elegant structural design.”
Looking at Figures 6-7, there are two different devices; figure 6 shows a first cutting device 21 that a large roll can be slitted into 5 smaller rolls and Figure 7 shows an another cutting device 22 for cross cutting the smaller roll into individual small pieces (container blanks). Both cutting devices are not in the same system, therefore, it does Not perform two sequential cutting operations (it appears many steps or operations involved between the two cutting operations occurred).
The language “the”, for an example, using in “the first cutting …the second cutting…” is confusing since these don’t mention before.
“This workflow enables continuous, automated production of paper container blanks and supports integration with downstream equipment to achieve unmanned operation. The dual-cutting approach significantly reduces edge waste” is confusing because it is unclear what “this workflow” refers to. Also, the languages “continuous, automated production of paper container blanks” is confusing; see the discussion above for two different devices. How is the smaller roll transferring from the first cutting device in figure 6 to the second device in Figure 7 (in order to meet “continuous, automated production”)?
With regards to “This configuration eliminates waste edges between adjacent blanks and provides an efficient and elegant structural design” is confusing; above is said “this workflow”. Are this workflow and this configuration meaning the same? What are metes and bounds of “elegant structural design”?
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the platen die cutting machine, a rotary die cutting machine, and a laser cutting machine in claim 15 and the platen die cutting machine and a laser cutting machine in claim 16 (please notes that claims 15-16 are directly to a device; the structures of the device must be shown) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 7-11, 13, 15-17 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, step B “a first cutting operation…after the first cutting” is unclear whether the first cutting operation and the first cutting refers the same or different.
With regards to Claims 2-4, in the previous office action, claims 2-4 are rejointed and examined, however, Applicant amends claims 2-4 as “withdrawn” without providing any explanation. Therefore, scope of these claims is unclear. For compacting prosecution, claims 2-4 are withdrawn from further consideration and not examined below.
Claim 8 “the second cutting tool” is confusing since the second cutting tool refers back to the forming process. As claim 8 is written, it is unclear whether the second cutting tool belongs to the manufacturing device or the forming process (see claim 7 “implementing the forming process…claim 1”). Does the manufacturing device have the second cutting tool?
The scope of claims 15-17 is unclear since claim 7 is directly to a manufacturing device, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the manufacturing device by itself, this device includes the feeding rack, the first cutting tool, a small-unit paper roll receiving rack, and the manufacturing device is for implementing the forming process of claim 1,therefore, the structures in claims 15-17 are unclear whether they belong to the manufacturing device or the forming process. However, as claims 15-17 are written, it is confusing what the claimed structures are actually claimed and renders indefinite. See MPEP. 2173.05(p)II “PRODUCT AND PROCESS IN THE SAME CLAIM”.
“A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph….”
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, 7, 9, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (KR920004500 B1 and Translation) in view of Nishimura (US 2014/0014761).
Regarding claim 1, Moon teaches a forming process (Figures 2-8) of a paper container blank (individual blanks, Figure 5), comprising steps:
A: putting a
B: performing a first cutting operation by cutting left and right side edges of the rolled large-format paper roll with a first cutting tool (longitudinal zigzag cutting edges of a cutting roller, Figure 5) along a conveying direction to form a continuous blank, wherein at least one side of the continuous blank has a zigzag shape after the first cutting operation (see the longitudinal zigzag cutting edges in Figure 5 for cutting or slitting at least three zigzag blanks);
C: rolling the continuous blank obtained after the left and right side edges are cut to form a small-format paper roll (see the small format paper being rolled in Figure 8);
D: forming a second cutting operation by cutting the small-format paper roll with a second cutting tool in front and rear directions (see Figure 8, the cross cutting device for cross cutting in front and rear directions of the small-format paper roll into the individual blanks); and
E: forming the paper container blank by a cut paper from step D (see individual pieces or blanks in Figure 8).
Here is what Moon discusses to support the steps above:
Moon’s figure 5 having a long large format paper is clearly zigzag slitted by zigzag edgers of the first cutting roller into at least three small-format paper or cardboard;
Figure 6 shows the small-format paper after slitting by the first cutting roller;
Figure 7 shows a printer printing on container blanks of the small-format paper; and
Figure 8 shows the small-format paper (be rolled) to be crossly cut by edges of the second cutting rollers into individual container blanks as discussed by
Moon’s 2nd paragraph of page 7 states that “… as shown in Figure 5, as shown in Figure 6 by cutting an elongated disc as a roller-shaped cutaway with a plurality of saw-tooth cutting It is possible to effectively obtain a tape-shaped cardboard for making the same paper cup, which is printed on the tape-shaped cardboard by a rotary printing method as shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 8, the upper and thin blades and the lower blade have the same shape as the cutting roller, and the unit boards are cut one by one.”
However, Moon fails to show the large-format paper being rolled on a feeding rack.
Nishimura shows a cutting process (Figure 2A) having a large-format sheet roll on a feeding rack (rack 40-42 and supply roll R, Figure 4A) that is slitted into small-format rolls (24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the large-format paper of Moon to be rolled on a feeding rack for slitting into small rolls, as taught by Nishimura, in order to allow a continuous large-format carboard (blank) in a roll for easily handling and allow to cut or slit the continuous large-format carboard for mass or large amount of production.
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Moon shows a manufacturing device (see the modification device in claim 1 above) of a paper container blank for implementing the forming process of the paper container blank according to claim 1, the device comprising:
the feeding rack (42, Nishimura’s Figure 7), and
the first cutting tool (Moon’s Figure 5 and Nishimura’s Figure 2A) for cutting the large-format paper roll into a small-unit paper roll in the conveying direction (see the modification above), wherein a small-unit paper roll receiving rack (Nishimura’s Figure 4A, 4B and Paras. 48-49) is arranged at a rear end of the first cutting tool (see Nishimura’s Figure 4A, 4B).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Moon shows that at least two rolling shafts are arranged on the small-unit paper roll receiving rack and distributed up and down (see Nishimura’s Figure 4A, 4B), and adjacent units of the small-unit paper roll after being cut are collected on the at least two rolling shafts respectively (as it is written, it is unclear what the units are; see Nishimura’s Figure 4A, 4B, there are many units are adjacent, for examples, motors 22).
Regarding claims 15-17, as best understood, the modified device of Moon can be implemented all limitations of claims above and the small-area waste removal device is a die preset with a same size as a waste edge (see the discussion above for Moon’s edges removal, Moon’s Figure 5). Also, see the discussion 112 issue above.
Claims 8, 10-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (KR920004500 B1 and Translation) in view of Nishimura (US 2014/0014761) and Endo (US 2013/0192439).
Regarding claim 8, Moon teaches all of the limitations as stated above including the small-unit paper roll feeding rack (see the discussion in claim 9 above), the second cutting tool for cutting the small unit paper roll in the front and rear directions (see the discussion in claim 9 above and Moon’s Figure 8), however, Moon fails to discuss a blank collection bin.
Endo shows a collection bin (dust box 4, Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the device of Moon to have a box, as taught by Endo, in order to collect waste (waste material or dust).
Regarding claims 10-11, the modified device of Moon shows that the blank collection bin (box) is a blank paper feeding bin of a paper cup machine or a blank paper feeding bin of a paper bow machine (box 4, Endo’s Figure 1) and the mechanism for cutting the small-unit paper roll in the front and rear directions further comprises a small-area waste removal device (Para. 55 of Endo).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Moon shows that the small-area waste removal device is a die preset with a same size as a waste edge (see the discussion above for Moon’s edges removal, Moon’s Figure 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive the reason below:
With regards to “the rotary die cutting machine or the laser cutting machine is label as 21”, this is not persuasive since the rotary die cutting machine is needed to show at least roll or rotary feature and the laser cutting machine is needed to show a laser generation of some sorts in the drawing as the claims are written, it appears to have at least three different embodiments of the first cutting tool. It is similar to the second cutting tool that needs to shows 3 different embodiments.
With regards to “workflow enables continuous, automated production of paper container blanks and supports integration with downstream equipment" (i.e. an automated process)”, this is not persuasive. See the issue of abstract above. How is the smaller roll from the fist cutting device transferring to the second cutting device (in order to consider as workflow enables continuous, automated production of paper container blanks)?
With regards to claims 15-17, it is directly to structures of the manufacturing device, however, as the claims are written, it has steps B, D in the same claims render indefinite. See the 112 discussion above.
With regards to “MPEP 2141.02 and 2143.03”, Examiner is well understood obviousness requirements and considerations.
Applicant states that “Moon does not teach the claimed two-stage forming process that produces a continuous blank having a zigzag side edge and subsequently rolls that continuous blank into a small-format paper roll for secondary front-rear cutting” in page 31, this argument is acknowledged but it is persuasive. It does not teach the claimed two-stage forming process. As the claim is written, it performs a first cutting operation and a second cutting perforation which Moon’s figure 5 (cutting roller) teaches a slitting cutting having zigzag edges (a first cutting operation) and Figure 8 teaches a cross cutting (a second cutting operation) which is clearly met the claimed limitation.
With regards to the zigzag edges, it is clearly shown in Moon’s Figure 5.
With regards to “The zigzag geometry in the present invention is not merely a by-product of cutting-it is specifically implemented to allow adjacent blanks to interlock edge-to-edge and eliminate waste”; it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., adjacent blanks to interlock edge-to-edge and eliminate waste) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant states that “Moon also does not roll the continuous blank generated in step B into the "small- format paper roll" recited in step C”. Examiner disagrees since Moon’s Figure 8 shows the roll of small- format paper.
Applicant states that “Moon further does not have a second cutting tool…as required by step D”. It is not persuasive since Moon clearly shows the second cutting tool in Figure 8.
Again, Applicant states that “…interlock blank edge…”; it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., interlock edge) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26”USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regards to “the claimed two-staged cutting sequence…”, see the response above and see the rejections above.
With regards to “Step E is also not taught by Moon because Moon does not disclose forming the final paper container blank by separating a cut piece that originated from a continuous zigzag- edged blank rolled into a small-format roll” it is not persuasive because Moon’s Figure 8 clearly shows the a small-format roll being cut into individual container blanks.
As of results above, the combination of Moon and Nishimura teaches claimed steps A-E of claim 1.
Applicant states that “Nishimura does not teach any of the core features of claim 1 and therefore cannot remedy the deficiencies of Moon. Nishimura is directed solely to a slitting system…a zigzag shape”. Examiner agrees that Nishimura does not have a cutting step for a zigzag shape, however, Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (see the modification above, a combination of Moon and Nishimura teaches the claimed invention. See the rejections above). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Again, Applicant states that “Endo fails to teaches any element of claim 1…”. Examiner agrees that Endo does not have some features of claim 1, however, Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (see the modification above, a combination of Moon, Nishimura and Endo teaches the claimed collection bin. See the rejections above). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regards to MPEP 2142 “…instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” and MPEP 2143.01(IV) “…instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness” and later, Applicant states that “Moon and Nishimura are not obvious to combine because the two references address fundamentally different problems, operate on different material structures, and are incompatible in their processing assumptions”. This argument is not persuasive since a manufacturer does not limit to cut few container blanks. Moon teaches cutting and producing 500 container blanks (tape-shaped cardboard) for small orders (page 7) or 50,000 container blanks (page 6) that means the carboard sheet is inherently long and it should be rolled as strongly suggested by Nishimura. See MPEP 2141.01(a) “Analogous and Nonanalogous Art”
In the second paragraph states that “the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention), therefore, one skill in the art can have the long large-format paper or carboard to be rolled for easily handling as strongly suggested by Nishimura (instead of the long large-format paper or carboard flatly lies on a floor or supporter). Please note that one of ordinary skill in the art would be a person of ordinary creativity (not an automation) or a mechanical engineer with at least a 4 year degree and several years of work experience (See MPEP. 2141.03 “Level of Ordinary Skill in the art”), and would clearly understand how to improve Moon’s device and how to modify Moon’s device based on the strongly suggestion of Nishimura that allows the l long large-format paper or carboard to be rolled; therefore, based on the Moon’s device, having the long large-format paper or carboard to be rolled is simple and easily modification without affecting any function of cutting or slitting and would be benefit for manufactures for handling a long large-format paper or carboard as strongly suggested by Nishimura. The results are highly predictable and reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results as per MPEP 2143, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale D.
With regards to “Moon and Endo are not obvious to combine because the two references operate in entirely different technological contexts, solve unrelated problems, and would not function together without fundamentally altering Moon's process”, this argument is not persuasive since as the claim 8 is written, the blank collection bin is not clear what it is using or functioning. Therefore, Endo’s bin is for collecting waste and meets the limitations. Every cutting device generates waste or dust of some sorts during cutting, Endo strongly suggest to have a bin collect the waste, instead of letting the waste every on the floor. It is an improvement. See MPEP. 2141.01(a) and the discussion above for “the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention)”.
With regards to “even if Moon and Nishimura were combined, the modification would destroy the intended functionality of Moon's forming process and therefore cannot be considered a proper combination. Moon relies on maintaining a single continuous web with longitudinally shaped edges so that its downstream cross-cutting …” in the last paragraph of page 37, this argument is vague. See Moon’s figure 5 having a long large-format paper or carboard is zigzag slitted by zigzag edgers of the first cutting roller into at least three small-format paper and
Moon’s figure 8 shows one of the at least three small-format paper to be rolled and “later” crossly cut by edges of the second cutting rollers into individual container blanks.
Nishimura suggests to have a long sheet (prior to slit) or a long large-format paper or carboard to be rolled.
Therefore, one skill in the art to have the long large-format paper or carboard to be rolled in order to be easily handled.
Applicant states that “Moon relies on maintaining a single continuous web…” in the in the last paragraph of page 37. This argument is unclear. See the discussion above.
Moon’s figure 5 having a long large format paper is clearly zigzag slitted by zigzag edgers of the first cutting roller into at least three small-format paper,
Figure 6 shows the small-format paper,
Figure 7 shows a printer on container blanks of the small-format paper, and
Figure 8 shows the small-format paper to be crossly cut by edges of the second cutting rollers into individual container blanks as discussed
Moon’s 2nd paragraph of page 7 states that “… as shown in Figure 5, as shown in Figure 6 by cutting an elongated disc as a roller-shaped cutaway with a plurality of saw-tooth cutting It is possible to effectively obtain a tape-shaped cardboard for making the same paper cup, which is printed on the tape-shaped cardboard by a rotary printing method as shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 8, the upper and thin blades and the lower blade have the same shape as the cutting roller, and the unit boards are cut one by one.”
Therefore, this argument is unclear what Applicant tries to argue.
The point of this modification that Examiner is making is to have a roller for rolling Moon’s long large-format sheet or paper for easily handling. This is a symbol modification and does not destroy any Moon’s device function.
With regards to “even if Moon and Endo were combined, the modification would destroy the intended functionality of Moon's continuous roll-based blank-forming process and therefore cannot be considered a proper or satisfactory combination”. See the discussion of Endo’s waste-collection box above. The examiner does not know how Applicant has a conclusion of adding Endo’s waste-collection box that would be unsatisfactory. Every cutting device generates waste during cutting or slitting the workpiece. The waste should be collected, instead of laying anywhere on the floor. This is an improvement and strongly suggested by Endo.
With regards to pages 38-39 “…would require substantial reconstruction of Moon’s system…a single continuous web that is longitudinally shaped and then transversely cut to from individual paper container blanks”, again, this argument is not persuasive. Moon teaches more than what Applicant is conclusion. See the response in page 15 above that would not fundamentally change the principle operation of Moon.
With regards to “the combination of Moon and Endo…” in the last paragraph of page 39. See the discussion of Endo’s waste collection above. Adding Endo’s waste collection to Moon’s device is an improvement of Moon’s device and would not fundamentally change the principle operation of Moon.
With regards to “Hindsight…the Examiner failed to provide any reasonable motivation to combine Moon, Nishimura, and Endo”, Examiner disagrees this argument. See the rejections above; Examiner clearly provides reasonable, motivation to combine Moon, Nishimura, and Endo.
With regards to “Inventor Identified a Problem Other Did not” in pages 42-43, this argument is not persuasive since Moon’s art has been discussed to reduce waste. Moon already sees the problem and discusses all of steps of claim 1 (see the discussion above) except that the long large sheet hasn’t been rolled.
Nishimura teaches a long large sheet is rolled for easily handling the long large sheet.
Endo teaches a waste collection that all cutting devices are needed for collecting waste and dust.
With regards to “Applicant’s claimed limitation additionally added more costs to the claimed device because the system has to be designed to incorporate the extra required component…” and later “since the applied prior art references did not even recognized Applicant’s problem or Applicant’s solutions…” in page 44, this is not persuasive.
Moon discusses a problem and all claimed steps except the large-format paper roll on a feeding rack; however, Nishimura teaches large-format paper roll on a feeding rack for easily handling. Similar to Endo who teaches the waste collection for collecting waste.
What are claimed steps of the method that the combination of Moon and Nishimura, and or Endo do not have?
What are claimed structures of the manufacturing device that the combination of Moon and Nishimura, and or Endo do not have?
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 4/6/2026