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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 01/29/2024 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings, specifically Figs. 2-3 and 6-8, are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(p)(3). Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 0.32cm (1/8in) in height and they should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension: they should not cross or mingle with the lines; they should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces; and when necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 1-10 are low resolution, dithered, and in grayscale/halftones, rendering them visually unclear. Further, there are artifacts (e.g., gray patches and/or dithering in areas that are expected to be blank or white) that further obscure the drawings. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1), black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l). Moreover, the clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k). For examples of acceptable drawing clarity and quality, see US 20220362902 A1, US 20230076152 A1, US 20230286103 A1, and US 20240009795 A1. Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as vector graphics instead of raster images (bitmap) and uploading them to USPTO Patent Center as “Drawings-other than black and white line drawings”, which should cause the filed image file to be stored in the SCORE database without any image conversion.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 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” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, 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 U.S.C. § 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 1-10 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 includes the limitations, “a so-called vertical orientation”, “a so-called vertical direction”, and “a so-called vertical plane”. Claim 6 includes the limitation, “the at least one so-called additional spray element.” These limitations are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention because they fail to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what “so-called” means (e.g., as opposed to the same limitation without the term “so-called”). See MPEP § 2173.05(b). The definition of “so-called” includes “commonly” but also “falsely called” and “improperly called”. These definitions make the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claims 2-10 are rejected on the basis they incorporate the limitations of claim 1.
Claims 1 and 6-10 are indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations listed below, which render the claims unclear and ambiguous. For examination purposes, these limitations are interpreted as best understood. Claims 2-10 are rejected on the basis they incorporate the limitations of claim 1 below.
“the cleaning fluid” (claim 1, line 8);
“the normal” (claim 1, line 14);
“the main elongation direction” (claim 1, lines 14-15);
“the at least one so-called additional spray element” (claim 6, line 3); Examiner suggests changing to --the at least one spray element-- (see also § 112(b) rejection above for “so-called”);
“the at least one additional spray element” (claim 7, line 3); Examiner suggests changing to --the at least one spray element--;
“the orientation of” (claim 8, line 3);
“the at least one spray orifice” (claim 8, line 3);
“the orientation of” (claim 8, lines 3-4) (this appears to refer to an orientation different from the “vertical orientation” of claim 1 (e.g., a sideways orientation));
“the at least one additional spray element” (claim 8, line 4); Examiner suggests changing to --the at least one spray element--;
“the at least one spray orifice” (claim 9, line 3);
“the series of spray orifices” (claim 9, line 4);
“the additional spray element” (claim 9, lines 4-5); Examiner suggests changing to --the at least one spray element--;
“the at least one spray orifice” (claim 10, line 5);
“the cleaning zone” (claim 10, line 6);
“the at least one additional spray element” (claim 10, line 8); Examiner suggests changing to --the at least one spray element--;
“the cleaning” (claim 10, lines 9-10).
Double Patenting
Examiner is aware of Applicant’s copending applications: 18/293,502, titled “WIPING SYSTEM AND CONTROL OF CLEANING FLUID INJECTION IN A WIPING SYSTEM”; and 18/293,497, titled “WIPER WITH ELEMENT FOR SPRAYING CLEANING FLUID”, which have pending claims directed to similar subject matter. Currently, the claims in this application and the copending applications are sufficiently delineated and are patentably distinct from each other. Accordingly, a statutory double patenting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or a nonstatutory double patenting rejection is not appropriate at this time, but may be applied should the claims of this application and/or the copending applications be amended such that the claims of this application are no longer patentably distinct from the claims of the copending applications. MPEP § 804.
Applicant is advised of its duty of disclosure, candor, and good faith to identify its own copending applications and patents that disclose similar subject matter, as well as prior art and other information from the prosecution of its own copending applications and patents, that are material to the patentability (including double patenting) of this application. MPEP §§ 2001.04, 2001.05, 2001.06, 2001.06(a)-(e).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Caillot in view of Egner-Walter1, Egner-Walter2, and Giraud
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150143655 A1 (“Caillot”) in view of US 20080263806 A1 (“Egner-Walter1”), US 20080216274 A1 (“Egner-Walter2”), and US 20160096512 A1 (“Giraud”).
Caillot pertains to a wiper blade (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10). Egner-Walter1 pertains to a wiper blade (Abstr.; Figs. 1-20). Egner-Walter2 pertains to a wiper blade (Abstr.; Figs. 1-7). Giraud pertains to a wiper blade (Abstr.; Figs. 1-19). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Caillot discloses a wiper blade (Figs. 1-10, wiper 1) comprising:
a blade body extending along a longitudinal elongation direction of the wiper blade (Figs. 1-10, blade body including elements 8 and 15 (Fig. 2) extends along a longitudinal direction 5),
and a wiper rubber carried by the blade body and configured for cleaning a visibility zone of a glazed surface for a motor vehicle (Figs. 1-10, wiper rubber 12 carried by blade body and is capable of cleaning a visibility zone (e.g., zone 61 of Fig. 10)),
the blade body comprising:
at least one spray element configured to project the cleaning fluid... (Figs. 9-10; ¶¶ 0089-0094, spray holes 57 project cleaning fluid out of pipe 56),
wherein the at least one spray element is in a so-called vertical orientation defined by an angle...with respect to a so-called vertical direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal elongation direction and in a so-called vertical plane, of which the normal is parallel to the main elongation direction (Figs. 1-10, vertical plane 18 (Fig. 2) is normal to the longitudinal direction 5, vertical direction is in the up/down direction within vertical plane 18 (as oriented in Fig. 2), spray holes 57 are in a “vertical orientation” that is at an angle to the vertical direction).
Caillot does not explicitly disclose:
at least one spray element configured to project the cleaning fluid into an additional zone separate from the visibility zone to clean an element arranged outside the visibility zone,
wherein the at least one spray element is in a so-called vertical orientation defined by an angle between 60° and 110° with respect to a so-called vertical direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal elongation direction and in a so-called vertical plane, of which the normal is parallel to the main elongation direction.
However, the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination makes obvious this claim.
Egner-Walter1 discloses:
at least one spray element configured to project the cleaning fluid (Fig. 8; ¶ 0031, spray holes 12 project cleaning fluid out of pipe 11),
wherein the at least one spray element is in a so-called vertical orientation defined by an angle between 60° and 110° with respect to a so-called vertical direction substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal elongation direction and in a so-called vertical plane, of which the normal is parallel to the main elongation direction (Fig. 8; ¶ 0032, vertical plane M is normal to the longitudinal direction of the blade body, vertical direction is in the up/down direction within vertical plane M (as oriented in Fig. 8), spray holes 12 are in a “vertical orientation” that is at an angle between 60° and 110° to the vertical direction, “The axes of the spray orifices 12 are oriented in such a manner that they form an angle smaller than 90° with the central plane M”).
Giraud discloses:
at least one spray element configured to project the cleaning fluid into an additional zone separate from the visibility zone to clean an element arranged outside the visibility zone (Fig. 6, cleaning fluid 9 is sprayed from spray holes 8 into an additional zone outside the visibility zone (e.g., the spray reaches the frame surrounding the windshield 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Egner-Walter1 with Caillot by modifying the angle of one or more of the spray holes 57 (see Caillot Fig. 10 for multiple spray holes 57) to the recited angle range, as taught by Egner-Walter1. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this is a design choice that considers where it is optimal to locate the resulting cleaning fluid spray relative to the wiper blade, taking into account factors (in addition to the spray hole angle) such as the pressure/velocity of the fluid exiting the spray hole, the amount of fluid exiting the spray hole, the rotating speed of the wiper blade, the position of the wiper blade, and the effect of gravity on the fluid (see Egner-Walter2 Fig. 1; ¶ 0025, spray holes of fluid channel 7 are arranged at different angles α1 and α2 resulting in two different sprays 9 at different angles and resulting distances from the wiper blade 1). Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the angle range as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Giraud with the Caillot/Egner-Walter1 combination by modifying one or more of the spray holes 57 to project the cleaning fluid into an additional zone separate from the visibility zone to clean an element arranged outside the visibility zone. Giraud discloses that the cleaning fluid spray from spray holes 8 reaches the frame surrounding the windshield (Giraud Fig. 6, fluid 9 from spray holes 8). Caillot also teaches this idea but from a different spray hole 40 (Caillot Fig. 10, showing fluid spray onto zones 62 and 63 that are in the path of a second wiper blade 60). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it would allow the cleaning fluid from the wiper blade to spray and clean other nearby zones and components therein, such as sensors or cameras (see Caillot ¶ 0103, “the invention may comprise the cleaning of the upper part of the second zone 62, this part being surrounded by a circle marked 63 on FIG. 10. This upper part 63 of the second zone 62 of the windscreen 59 contains an element 64 which analyses the state of the windscreen 59 or the state of the road ahead of the vehicle. It may therefore be a rain detector fixed to the inner face of the windscreen 59 and installed at the level of the upper part 63. It may also be a sunshine sensor, a photographic device or a camera, in particular for night vision. It may finally be a detector for fog, dirt or road signs.”). Examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill would also recognize that windshield spray mechanisms (including the Caillot spray mechanism) typically have some amount of overspray (at least during different driving conditions), which would also meet the limitation “at least one spray element configured to project the cleaning fluid into an additional zone separate from the visibility zone to clean an element arranged outside the visibility zone” (US 20030234303 A1 (“Berning”) ¶ 0009, “However when such sprays are aimed higher to compensate for the spray depression occurring at high speeds, overspray over the sides may result.”; US 20210094048 A1 (“Hester”) ¶ 0010, “The key-stoned shape spray distribution pattern may prevent overspray beyond the target surface”).
Regarding claim 2, the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination makes obvious the wiper blade of claim 1 as applied above. Egner-Walter1 further discloses wherein the angle defining the vertical orientation is between 60° and 100° (Fig. 8; ¶ 0032, spray holes 12 are in a “vertical orientation” that is at an angle between the recited range, “The axes of the spray orifices 12 are oriented in such a manner that they form an angle smaller than 90° with the central plane M”).
Regarding claim 3, the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination makes obvious the wiper blade of claim 1 as applied above. Egner-Walter1 further discloses wherein the angle defining the vertical orientation is between 80° and 100° (Fig. 8; ¶ 0032, spray holes 12 are in a “vertical orientation” that is at an angle between the recited range, “The axes of the spray orifices 12 are oriented in such a manner that they form an angle smaller than 90° with the central plane M”).
Regarding claim 4, the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination makes obvious the wiper blade of claim 1 as applied above. Egner-Walter1 further discloses wherein the angle defining the vertical orientation is between 70° and 90° (Fig. 8; ¶ 0032, spray holes 12 are in a “vertical orientation” that is at an angle between the recited range, “The axes of the spray orifices 12 are oriented in such a manner that they form an angle smaller than 90° with the central plane M”).
The obviousness rationale for claims 2-4 is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination makes obvious the wiper blade of claim 1 as applied above. Caillot further discloses wherein the blade comprises at least one spray orifice configured to project the cleaning fluid substantially into the visibility zone (Figs. 9-10, at least one spray hole 57 is capable of projecting cleaning fluid out of pipe 56 mostly onto the visibility zone 61; Examiner interprets “substantially” in this context to include the meanings “to a large degree” and “mostly”; Examiner interprets “at least one spray orifice” to be a different structure than the “at least one spray element” (e.g., two different spray holes 57)).
Regarding claim 6, the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination makes obvious the wiper blade of claim 5 as applied above. As modified by the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination in claim 1, the limitation “wherein the at least one spray orifice is in a vertical orientation different from the vertical orientation of the at least one so-called additional spray element” is satisfied, where one or more of the spray holes 57 has a vertical orientation modified to be within the range recited to project the cleaning fluid into an additional zone separate from the visibility zone, while one or more of (the other) spray holes 57 has a different vertical orientation to focus spraying onto the visibility zone.
Regarding claim 7, the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination makes obvious the wiper blade of claim 5 as applied above. As modified by the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination in claim 1, one or more of the spray holes 57 has a vertical orientation modified to be within the range recited to project the cleaning fluid into an additional zone separate from the visibility zone, while one or more of (the other) spray holes 57 has a different vertical orientation to focus spraying onto the visibility zone. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the angles of the spray holes such that “a vertical separation angle between the vertical orientation of the at least one spray orifice and the at least one additional spray element is at least 10°” for the same reasons stated for claim 1 (see Egner-Walter2 Fig. 1; ¶ 0025, spray holes of fluid channel 7 are arranged at different angles α1 and α2 resulting in two different sprays 9 at different angles and resulting distances from the wiper blade 1; see also Egner-Walter1 ¶ 0032, “The axes of the spray orifices 12 are oriented in such a manner that they form an angle smaller than 90° with the central plane M”). Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the angle range as claimed, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555 (CCPA 1975). Without evidence of criticality or unexpected results, where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267 (CCPA 1976); MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination makes obvious the wiper blade of claim 1 as applied above. Egner-Walter2 further discloses wherein the orientation of the at least one spray orifice differs from the orientation of the at least one additional spray element seen in projection on a plane perpendicular to a longitudinal median plane of the wiper rubber and comprising the longitudinal elongation direction of the wiper blade (Fig. 7; ¶ 0034, spray 9 from different spray holes have different orientations as recited, the recited “a plane” is perpendicular to the longitudinal medial plane 18 (Caillot Fig. 2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination to change the horizontal angle of one or more of spray holes 57 (e.g., the holes 57 directed to outside the visibility zone) in order for the cleaning fluid spray to better reach the zone or object to be cleaned (see Caillot ¶ 0103, “the invention may comprise the cleaning of the upper part of the second zone 62, this part being surrounded by a circle marked 63 on FIG. 10. This upper part 63 of the second zone 62 of the windscreen 59 contains an element 64 which analyses the state of the windscreen 59 or the state of the road ahead of the vehicle. It may therefore be a rain detector fixed to the inner face of the windscreen 59 and installed at the level of the upper part 63. It may also be a sunshine sensor, a photographic device or a camera, in particular for night vision. It may finally be a detector for fog, dirt or road signs.”).
Regarding claim 9, the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination makes obvious the wiper blade of claim 1 as applied above. Egner-Walter2 further discloses wherein a mean passage cross section of the at least one spray orifice of the series of spray orifices is larger than a passage cross section of the additional spray element (Fig. 4; ¶ 0031, spray holes 9 have a larger opening cross section that spray holes 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to further modify the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination to change the opening size of one or more of spray holes 57 (e.g., reduce the size of the holes 57 directed to outside the visibility zone) in order to conserve the majority of the cleaning fluid spray for cleaning the visibility zone itself. This is a design choice based on how dirty the outside zone or object (e.g., a sensor) to be cleaned is expected to get relative to the windshield, taking into account how many spray holes are directed to the outside zone or object vs. directed to the visibility zone (see Caillot ¶ 0103, “the invention may comprise the cleaning of the upper part of the second zone 62, this part being surrounded by a circle marked 63 on FIG. 10. This upper part 63 of the second zone 62 of the windscreen 59 contains an element 64 which analyses the state of the windscreen 59 or the state of the road ahead of the vehicle. It may therefore be a rain detector fixed to the inner face of the windscreen 59 and installed at the level of the upper part 63. It may also be a sunshine sensor, a photographic device or a camera, in particular for night vision. It may finally be a detector for fog, dirt or road signs.”).
Regarding claim 10, the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination makes obvious the wiper blade of claim 1 as applied above.
Caillot further discloses a device for wiping a glazed surface for a motor vehicle (Abstr.; Figs. 1-10, wiper 1), the device comprising:
at least one wiper blade for wiping the glazed surface (Figs. 1-10, blade body and wiper rubber 12),
wherein the at least one spray orifice is configured to project the cleaning fluid into the visibility zone formed by the cleaning zone of the wiper rubber (Figs. 9-10, at least one spray hole 57 is capable of projecting cleaning fluid out of pipe 56 onto the visibility zone 61 (which is the same as the cleaning zone of wiper rubber 12)).
As modified by the Caillot/Egner-Walter1/Egner-Walter2/Giraud combination in claim 1, the limitation “wherein the at least one additional spray element is configured to project the cleaning fluid outside the visibility zone of the wiper rubber so as to permit the cleaning of at least one element arranged outside the visibility zone” is satisfied (i.e., modifying one or more of the spray holes 57 to project the cleaning fluid into an additional zone separate from the visibility zone to clean an element arranged outside the visibility zone).
The obviousness rationale for claim 10 is the same as for claim 1.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on Form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure because the references pertain to windshield wipers and windshield cleaning fluid sprayers, particularly wipers blades that include an integrated sprayer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/ Date: June 11, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights