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 .
This Office action is in response to amendments filed on 02/12/2026. Claims 1-14 are pending. The previously filed specification objection has been withdrawn, as necessitated by the amendments. The previously filed 35 USC 112(f) claim interpretations for “ a drive arrangement” in claim 11 and “a fluid delivery arrangement” in claim 13 remain in place.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Teo (US Patent No. 12,279,741).
Regarding claim 1, Teo (US Patent No. 12,279,741) discloses a cleaning head (item 10; fig. 1) for a wet vacuum cleaner, comprising:
a housing (includes items 12, 66, 68; figs. 1-2 and 6) having a width (designated in annotated fig. 6 below) between first (designated in annotated fig. 6 below; defined as outer left end wall in view of figs. 10a-10b) and second side walls (defined as wall on opposing side of housing relative to first side wall, not explicitly seen in annotated fig. 2 below; defined as right end wall in view of figs. 10a-10b) and a length (designated in annotated fig. 6 below), the length being parallel to an intended main direction of movement of the cleaning head (defined as A1 direction; fig. 6) over a floor to be cleaned (not explicitly shown; col. 7, ll. 35-40), wherein the housing has a minimum spacing (designated in annotated fig. 9 below; defined as lowest edge of housing 12 measured to the floor when in use; similar to applicant’s disclosure) over the floor to be cleaned;
PNG
media_image1.png
457
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6.
first and second rotary brushes (items 14-16; figs. 1-2 and 6; col. 7, ll. 20-22), each extending across the width of the housing between the first and second side walls (both rotary brushes 14, 16 are mounted to housing and extend in width direction in a region between first and second side walls; col. 7, ll. 20-22; figs. 2 and 6) with parallel rotation axes (items X1, X2; col. 7, ll. 32-35; figs. 6-7), and side by side in a length direction (rotary brushes 14, 16 are side by side, i.e. next to each other, along a length direction, defined as direction parallel to A1 and extending along length dimension, as designated in annotated fig. 6 above); and
a suction channel (item 40; figs. 7-8) for delivering suction to at least a space (defined as space between first and second rotary brushes 14, 16 and first and second side walls of housing 12, i.e. space in which items 42, 66, 68 are mounted into; figs. 6-8);
PNG
media_image2.png
275
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 9.
wherein the housing comprises:
a first projection (item 66; fig. 6) extending inwardly from the first side wall into said space (first projection 66 extends inward in right-direction in view of fig. 6 from first side wall into space in which suction is applied), the first projection having a first guide channel (item 82; figs. 6 and 13-14; col. 10, ll. 6-16) creating a first region of greater spacing than the minimum spacing (designated in annotated fig. 13 below; first guide channel is defined to extend through item 74 of first projection, thereby defining a first region of greater spacing from the floor to be cleaned than the minimum spacing in order for larger debris to pass through; col. 10, ll. 6-16); and
a second projection (item 68; fig. 6) extending inwardly from the second side wall into said space (designated in annotated fig. 6 below along dashed-arrowed line; second projection 68 extends inward in left-direction from second side wall in view of fig. 6 into space in which suction is applied), the second projection having a second guide channel (item 82 on the right side in view of fig. 6; col. 10, ll. 6-16) creating a second region of greater spacing than the minimum spacing (analogous to the first region of greater spacing from first projection 66 but on the corresponding second projection 68 structure; second guide channel 82 on second projection 68 extends through item 74 of second projection and thereby, defines a second region of greater spacing from the floor to be cleaned than the minimum spacing in order for larger debris to pass through; col. 10, ll. 6-16).
PNG
media_image3.png
505
742
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 13.
With regard to the recitation “for a wet vacuum cleaner,” this recitation has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the claim is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. 88 USPQ 478. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Please refer to MPEP 2111.02.II. Further, in the instant case, the cleaning head in Teo is capable of suctioning up some liquid, fluid, etc. from the surface to be cleaned and separated within cyclonic construction (col. 1, ll. 29-30).
Regarding claim 2, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and second projections each extend across the space between the first and second rotary brushes in the length direction (the first and second projections 66, 68 extend within the space as suction is guided through guide channels 74 of the first and second projection and positioned between the first and second rotary brushes 14, 16 along the length direction; annotated fig. 6 above).
Regarding claim 3, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and second projections each comprise a rim around the respective guide channel (designated in annotated fig. 14 below; each projection 66, 68 includes rim around the respective guide channel 82 in order for suction to be guided through guide channel; col. 9, ll. 26-33 and ll. 49-59), wherein the rim is formed at the minimum spacing (lower edge of rim, designated in annotated figs. 13 above and fig. 14 below, defines minimum spacing from floor to be cleaned).
PNG
media_image4.png
478
676
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 14.
Regarding claim 7, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a support wheel arrangement (defined as distribution, i.e. arrangement, of wheels 56, 58 on left and right sides of housing 12; figs. 2 and 6) for mounting the housing at the minimum spacing over the floor to be cleaned (during use, wheels 56, 58 guide cleaning head along surface to be cleaned at minimum spacing, i.e. spacing from lower edge, i.e. rim, of projections 66, 68 in which wheels are mounted to from the floor to be cleaned; annotated fig. 9 above).
Regarding claim 8, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 7, wherein the support wheel arrangement comprises:
a first support wheel (item 56 on left side in view of fig. 6 above) in the space between the first and second rotary brushes (first support wheel 56 is mounted in the space via intermediate components, i.e. item 60, figs. 13-14), set back from the first side wall (upper portion of first support wheel 56 is set back from lowermost edge of first side wall); and
a second support wheel (item 56 on right side in view of fig. 6 above) in the space between the first and second rotary brushes (second support wheel 56 is mounted in the space via intermediate components, i.e. item 60; figs. 6 and 13-14), set back from the second side wall (second support wheel 56 is set back, i.e. more toward the rear direction, from the second side wall when cleaning head is moving along the surface to be cleaned to the right in view of figs. 6 and 10(a), which is a direction in which cleaning head can be used due to the caster structure of the first and second support wheels 56).
Regarding claim 9, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 8, further comprising a third support wheel (item 58 on left side in view of fig. 6 above) in front or behind the first and second rotary brushes in the length direction (along the length direction, third support wheel 58 is positioned behind first rotary brush 14 and in front of second rotary brush 16; fig. 6), and a fourth support wheel (item 58 on the right side in view of fig. 6) side-by-side with the third support wheel (third support wheel 58 and fourth support wheel 58 are next to one another, i.e. side-by-side, and align on the same horizontal plane and direction in view of fig. 6; similar to applicant’s disclosure in which third and fourth support wheels are side-by-side but separated by additional cleaning head structure, i.e. the neck of the cleaning head).
Regarding claim 11, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a drive arrangement (not explicitly shown; defined as singular motor and belt assembly; col. 7, ll. 47-64) for driving the first and second rotary brushes in opposite rotation directions (col. 7, ll. 32-35).
Regarding claim 12, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 11, wherein the drive arrangement comprises: a single motor (col. 7, ll. 50-53) and a belt drive (col 7, ll. 61-64) for driving the first and second rotary brushes (col. 7, ll. 47-64).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teo (US Patent No. 12,279,741).
Regarding claim 4, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 3, wherein the rim has a thickness (defined as w1 in annotated fig. 14 above; similar to applicant’s disclosure), parallel to a plane defined by the minimum spacing (thickness w1 extends in along a plane parallel to the surface to be cleaned and minimum spacing; similar to applicant’s disclosure). Teo does not explicitly disclose the dimension of the rim, such as the thickness of the rim in a range of 1 mm to 15 mm.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the thickness of the rim to be between 1 mm to 15 mm. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The size of the rim thickness can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the thickness of the rim is larger (e.g. closer to 15 mm), the respective guide channels on the first and second projections may be extended thereby, causing the airflow to accelerate as it moves along the channel, which also services to promote the passage of debris into the suction space (Teo; col. 10, ll. 10-16); while, if the thickness of the rim is smaller (e.g. closer to 1 mm), the respective guide channels on the first and second projections may be smaller thereby, reducing the acceleration rate for the airflow which may prevent larger debris to be suctioned into the suction space. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Teo, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the thickness of the rim to be between 1mm and 15 mm. Further in the instant application, p. 8, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and second regions of greater spacing having a spacing (defined as bolded double-arrowed line in annotated fig. 13 above). Though Teo discloses the spacing of the first and second regions is greater than the minimum spacing (via the curvature of the rim defining the guide channels 82; figs. 13-14), Teo does not explicitly disclose the dimensions, such as the spacing between 1 mm and 6 mm greater than the minimum spacing.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the spacing to be between 1mm and 6 mm greater than the minimum spacing. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The size of the spacing relative to the minimum spacing can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the spacing is larger (e.g. closer to 6 mm greater than the minimum spacing), the first and second guide channels may be larger thereby, allowing for large debris such as rice and cereal to be drawn through the guide channels without the risk of blockage of the guide channels and suction chambers (Teo; col. 3, ll. 66 through col. 4, ll. 3); whereas, if the spacing is smaller (e.g. closer to 1 mm greater than the spacing), the first and second guide channels may be smaller (e.g. closer to the surface to be cleaned), thereby reducing the likelihood of larger debris being drawn in through the guide channels, blocking the suction passageways, and resulting in the larger debris remaining on the floor surface when the cleaning head is turned off (Teo; col. 4, ll. 4-7). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Teo, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the spacing to be 1 mm to 6 mm greater than the minimum spacing. Further in the instant application, p. 8, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the dimension of the minimum spacing, such as wherein the minimum spacing is in a range 1.5 mm to 5 mm.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the minimum spacing to be between 1.5 mm and 5 mm. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The size of the minimum spacing can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the minimum spacing is smaller (e.g. closer to 1.5 mm), the housing of the cleaning head may be closer to the surface to be cleaned thereby, preventing larger debris from easily being suctioned into the suction space during use; while if the minimum spacing is larger (e.g. closer to 5 mm), the cleaning head may be further from the surface to be cleaned thereby, allowing for larger debris to be suctioned into the suction space and not getting caught by the height of the housing relative to the floor (e.g. minimum spacing). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Teo, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the minimum spacing to be 1.5 mm to 5 mm. Further in the instant application, p. 7, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second support wheels are each set back by a distance in a range 1 cm to 5 cm from respective ends of the rotary brushes.
First, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the distance in which the first and second support wheels are set back from respective ends of the rotary brushes to be between 1 cm to 5 cm. Since such a modification would involve a mere change in size of the component (e.g. change in size of the first and second projections projecting in from the respective sidewalls, p. 4 of instant disclosure), a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05). Furthermore, the claimed dimensions are recognized as result effective variable, i.e. a variable in which achieves a recognized result as set forth above. The distance in which the first and second support wheels are set back from the respective ends of the rotary brushes can vary depending on the design need to solve a problem. If the distance is larger (e.g. closer to 5 cm), the projection(s) may extend inward more relative to the respective side walls thereby, creating a larger respective guide channel from the lateral side of the cleaning head to the suction space to accelerate airflow as it moves along the channel and promote the passage of debris into the suction space (Teo; col. 10, ll. 10-16); while if the distance is smaller (e.g. closer to 1 cm), the projection(s) may not extend as far inward into the suction space, which defines a shorter respective guide channel thereby, reducing the acceleration rate of the airflow into the suction space and creating a higher chance of blockages in the guide channels. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim (e.g. having the claimed structure as recited above) is disclosed by Teo, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time when the invention was filed to provide the distance in which the first and second support wheels are set back from respective ends of the rotary brushes to be between 1 cm to 5 cm. Further in the instant application, p. 9, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teo (US Patent No. 12,279,741) in view of Quintero (US 2021/0127935).
Regarding claim 13, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 1. Though Teo discloses a cyclonic separator may be utilized to separate dirt, debris, etc. from the suctioned air (i.e. cyclonic separators are capable of separating liquid; col. 1, ll. 26-30), Teo does not explicitly a fluid delivery arrangement for delivering fluid to the first and/or second rotary brushes, as required by the claim.
However, Quintero (US 2021/0127935) teaches a wet vacuum cleaner (item 10; fig. 1) comprising a cleaning head (item 30; fig. 1) including first and second rotary brushes (items 65a, 65b; fig. 5) mounted to a housing (figs. 2-5), and the wet vacuum cleaner further comprising a fluid delivery arrangement (item 50; pp. [0013]; fig. 1) for delivering cleaning fluid to the first or second rotary brush (via item 175, which may be positioned within the cleaning as desired, pp. [0017], and selectively apply cleaning fluid, pp. [0021]; figs. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum cleaner, as disclosed in Teo, to be a wet vacuum cleaner comprising a fluid delivery arrangement to deliver cleaning fluid to the rotary brushes, as taught in Quintero, in order to selectively apply cleaning fluid to the surface to help further loosen the debris and clean the surface (pp. [0021] in Quintero).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teo (US Patent No. 12,279,741) in view of Aiken (US Patent No. 6,588,050) and further in view of Quintero (US 2021/0127935).
Regarding claim 14, Teo discloses the cleaning head as claimed in claim 1. Though Teo discloses the suction is delivered to the cleaning under the action of a suction generator located within the vacuum cleaning appliance (col. 9, ll. 34-36), Teo does not explicitly disclose wherein this suction generator is a pump for delivering suction to the suction channel of the cleaning head.
However, Aiken (US Patent No. 6,588,050) teaches a wet vacuum cleaner (item 10; fig. 1) comprising a cleaning head (item 40; fig. 1) including a rotary brush (item 26; fig. 1), a suction channel (defined as interior space of cleaning head), and a pump (item 55; fig. 1) for delivering suction to the suction channel of the cleaning head (col. 4, ll. 46-52).
Further, though Teo discloses a cyclonic separator may be utilized to separate dirt, debris, etc. from the suctioned air (i.e. cyclonic separator capable of separating liquid; col. 1, ll. 26-30), Teo does not explicitly disclose a wet vacuum cleaner comprising the cleaning head of claim 1 and a fluid reservoir delivering cleaning fluid to the cleaning head.
However, Quintero (US 2021/0127935) teaches a wet vacuum cleaner (item 10; fig. 1) comprising a cleaning head (item 30; fig. 1) including first and second rotary brushes (items 65a, 65b; fig. 5) mounted to a housing (figs. 2-5), and the wet vacuum cleaner further comprising a fluid reservoir (item 50; pp. [0013]; fig. 1) for delivering cleaning fluid to the cleaning head (via item 175, which may be positioned within the cleaning as desired, pp. [0017], and selectively apply cleaning fluid, pp. [0021]; figs. 1-5).
Therefore, first, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the suction generator, as disclosed in Teo, as a pump for delivering suction to the suction channel, as taught in Aiken, in order for the cleaning head to function as intended. Second, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum cleaner, as disclosed in Teo, to be a wet vacuum cleaner comprising a fluid reservoir to deliver cleaning fluid to the cleaning head, as taught in Quintero, in order to selectively apply cleaning fluid to the surface to help further loosen the debris and clean the surface (pp. [0021] in Quintero).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argues, “Teo [the art of record] fails to disclose that the housing comprises inward projections having guide channels configured to promote lateral airflow into the space between the rotary brushes. The channels disclose in Teo are structures dependent on wheel orientation and serve merely to guide debris and not to promote airflow near the floor.” (p. 7 of Remarks). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to Merriam-Webster, “projection” is defined as something that juts out; therefore, the first and second projections identified in Teo (items 66 and 68) are cartridges that jut out relative to the housing, wherein the housing includes the first and second sidewalls, and the width of these projections extend inwardly from the respective first and second sidewalls. The outer curvature of these projections (figs. 13-14) allow for a channel to extend from a front aperture of the projection(s) to the suction channel within said space (col. 10, ll. 6-13 in Teo) thereby, defining a guide channel to guide debris-bearing side airflow, i.e. lateral airflow into the space.
Second, applicant argues “the channels taught by Teo merely extend from the apertures of the cartridge and there is no teaching that the greater spacing than the minimum spacing, is created by the channels” (p. 8 of Remarks). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As recited in the claim, the housing has a minimum spacing over the floor to the cleaned (ll. 5 of claim 1) and the housing comprises a first projection and a second projection (ll. 11-15 of claim 1); hence, the minimum spacing is defined in Teo as the spacing from the floor to be cleaned to the lowermost edge (i.e. rim) of projection (annotated figs. 9 and 13 in Non-Final Rejection), since the projections are defined within the housing structure. Further, from Teo, the respective guide channels begin at the aperture (item 74; fig. 13) on the respective projection and the aperture creates (according to Merriam-Webster, “creates” is defined as to bring into existence) a greater spacing than the minimum spacing over the floor to be cleaned.
Third, in response to applicant’s arguments that the reference, Teo, is only used to “to manage airflow velocity and debris transport within the cleaning head” (p. 7 of Remarks) but fails to show certain features of applicant’s invention (i.e. reducing liquid pooling by inducing lateral airflow), it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specifications are not read into the claims (refer to MPEP 2173).
Therefore, the rejection remains in place.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Delair (US 2022/0257073) discloses a cleaning head for a vacuum comprising a rotary brush, a suction channel, a first projection extending inwardly from a first sidewall and creating a guide channel, and a second projection extending inwardly from a second sidewall opposite the first sidewall and creating a second guide channel.
Arthey (US 2011/0010886) discloses a cleaning head for a vacuum comprising a housing, a suction channel, a first projection extending inwardly from a first sidewall and a second projection extending inwardly from the second sidewall.
McCormick (US Patent No. 6,421,874) discloses a cleaning head for a vacuum comprising a housing, a rotary brush, a suction channel, and first and second projections extending inwardly from side walls and having guide channels.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. 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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723