DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed on January 21, 2026, the claim objections presented in the previous office action (dated 10/28/2025) are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1-2 and 4 have been amended,
Claims 3, 5, 7-8 and 10 were previously presented,
Claims 6, 9 and 11-14 were and still are withdrawn from further consideration due to the two-part restriction requirement (dated 08/14/2024), and
Claims 21-26 have been newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-8, 10 and 21-26 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10 and 21-26 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10 and 21-26, the phrase in each claim and instance, “…the low compressed regions…” should all read “…the discrete low-compressed regions…” to establish the proper antecedent basis and for consistency purposes with the remainder of the claim(s).
The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
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 1-5, 7-8, 10 and 21-26 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 1, ln. 3-4 and 8, the phrases, “…the packaging component…” and “…the variably-compressed component…” both lack antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. For instance, is the applicant encompassing the same “A variably-compressed fiber packaging component” (claim 1, ln. 1), when referring to “the packaging component” (ln. 3-4) AND “the variably-compressed component” (ln. 8) OR a different “packaging component(s)” in each of these occurrences? Further clarification is required.
In claim 4, ln. 10, the phrase, “…the packaging component…” lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim to be vague and indefinite because it is unclear as to which aforementioned structure(s) is being encompassed with such language. For instance, is the applicant encompassing the same ““A variably-compressed fiber packaging component” (claim 4, ln. 1), when referring to “the packaging component” (ln. 10) OR a different “packaging component(s)” in each of these occurrence? Further clarification is required.
As for claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 10, 21-26, due to their dependencies from claim 1, they too have these deficiencies.
Examiner's note: The forgoing analysis may not be exhaustive. Applicant should carefully proofread all claims and make all necessary corrections.
Claim Interpretation
In the art rejection below, examiner will treat or construe “a finished packaging component” to be a finished embossed sheet that is ready for shipment and/or usage; emphasis added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Callahan et al. (US 4135024 A; hereinafter Callahan).
Regarding claim 1, Callahan discloses a variably-compressed fiber packaging component (12), comprising:
a unitary body formed of plant-based fibers (i.e. pulp; see Col. 1 ln. 22-31), wherein the unitary body comprises:
a high-compressed region (i.e. densified regions (26) in Figs. 1-2 is what the examiner equates to the claimed high-compressed region) imparting structural rigidity to the packaging component; and
Examiner’s note: the arrangement of the high-compressed region (26; as shown in Callahan Fig. 1) is substantially identical to that the claimed arrangement of the high-compressed region (specifically Fig. 4c of the instant app). Since, the high-compressed region (of Callahan) is denser or more compact in comparison to the [discrete] low compressed regions (of Callahan). The high-compressed region (of Callahan) is considered to inherently have higher stiffness; therefore, the structural rigidity in that particular region (of the overall packaging component) will be relatively high as compared to the [discrete] low-compressed regions. Basically, the high compressed region (of Callahan) DOES IN FACT impart structural rigidity (much liked the claimed invention); emphasis added. See MPEP §2112.01(I) or MPEP §2112.01(II)
a plurality of discrete low-compressed regions (i.e. in the form of high loft regions (34) in Figs. 1-2 is what the examiner equates to the claimed [discrete] low-compressed regions), wherein the high-compressed region has a density that is at least twice that of the [discrete] low-compressed regions, and
wherein the variably-compressed component is a finished packaging component (Callahan Col. 5 ln. 44 – Col. 8 ln. 3 and Figs. 1-3).
Examiner’s note: Callahan teaches the following, “…it should be obvious that in all cases the density of the densified regions 26 is always greater than the density of the high loft regions 34. After embossing, the density of the densified regions 26 preferably ranges from about 0.08 to about 0.20 grams per cubic centimeter and the density of the high loft regions 34 is, preferably, less than 0.10 grams per cubic centimeter…” (see Callahan Col. 6 ln. 12-36). For instance, if the density of the [discrete] low-compressed regions is set to 0.10 grams per cubic centimeter and the density of the high-compressed region is set to 0.20 grams per cubic centimeter. Then the above teaching (of Callahan) reads on the claimed limitation of “wherein the high-compressed region has a density that is at least twice that of the [discrete] low-compressed regions” because 0.20 grams per cubic centimeter (i.e. density of the high-compressed region) is at least twice that of 0.10 grams per cubic centimeter (i.e. density of the [discrete] low-compressed regions; emphasis added.
Regarding claim 3, Callahan further discloses wherein the high-compressed region surrounds each of the [discrete] low-compressed regions (see Callahan Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Callahan further discloses wherein there is no transition between the high-compressed region and the [discrete] low-compressed regions on one of the unitary body (see Callahan Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Callahan further discloses wherein the high-compressed region is formed of a single-continuous high compressed region (see Callahan Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Callahan further discloses wherein the [discrete] low-compressed regions are uniformly distributed within at least an area of the unitary body (see Callahan Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Callahan further discloses wherein the [discrete] low-compressed regions are uncompressed regions (see Callahan Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 26, Callahan further discloses wherein the high compressed region has a first rigidity, and the [discrete] low compressed regions have a second rigidity less than the first rigidity.
Examiner’s note: Since, the high-compressed region (of Callahan) is denser or more compact in comparison to the [discrete] low compressed regions (of Callahan). In other words, the high-compressed region (of Callahan) is considered to inherently have higher stiffness; therefore, the structural rigidity in that particular region (of the overall packaging component) will be relatively high (i.e. the claimed first rigidity). Whereas, the [discrete] low compressed regions are less dense or less compact [when compared to the high compressed region]; therefore, those [discrete] low compressed regions will inherently have a lower stiffness (i.e. the claimed second rigidity). The overall arrangement of the high compressed region and the discrete low compressed regions (of Callahan) is nearly identically to the claimed arrangement; emphasis added. See MPEP §2112.01(I) or MPEP §2112.01(II)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callahan et al. (US 4135024 A; hereinafter Callahan).
Regarding claim 2, Callahan as above teaches all the structural limitation as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein the [discrete] low-compressed regions have a thickness at least five times that of the high-compressed region.
Therefore, 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 [discrete] low-compressed regions (of Callahan) to have a thickness at least five times that of the high-compressed region (of Callahan) to adjust the shock-absorbing properties by increasing the size of the [discrete] low-compressed regions.
Since, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)
In addition, it is noted that NOWHERE in the original disclosure, the applicant POINTS OUT the criticality for the claimed dimension(s) or range(s); emphasis added.
Regarding claim 21, Callahan as above teaches all the structural limitation as set forth in claim 1, except for wherein the [discrete] low-compressed regions have a thickness of at least 25 millimeters.
Therefore, 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 [discrete] low-compressed regions (of Callahan) to have a thickness of at least 25 millimeters to adjust the shock-absorbing properties by increasing the size of the [discrete] low-compressed regions.
Since, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)
In addition, it is noted that NOWHERE in the original disclosure, the applicant POINTS OUT the criticality for the claimed dimension(s) or range(s); emphasis added.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callahan et al. (US 4135024 A; hereinafter Callahan) in view of Trokhan et al. (US 5935381 A; hereinafter Trokhan).
Regarding claim 4, Callahan teaches a variably-compressed fiber packaging component (12), comprising:
a unitary body formed of plant-based fibers (i.e. pulp; see Col. 1 ln. 22-31), wherein the unitary body comprises:
a high-compressed region (i.e. densified regions (26) in Figs. 1-2 is what the examiner equates to the claimed high-compressed region); and
a low-compressed region (i.e. any of the high loft regions (34) in Figs. 1-2 is what the examiner equates to the claimed low-compressed region), wherein the high-compressed region has a density that is at least twice that of the low-compressed region,
Examiner’s note: Callahan teaches the following, “…it should be obvious that in all cases the density of the densified regions 26 is always greater than the density of the high loft regions 34. After embossing, the density of the densified regions 26 preferably ranges from about 0.08 to about 0.20 grams per cubic centimeter and the density of the high loft regions 34 is, preferably, less than 0.10 grams per cubic centimeter…” (see Callahan Col. 6 ln. 12-36). For instance, if the density of the low-compressed regions is set to 0.10 grams per cubic centimeter and the density of the high-compressed region is set to 0.20 grams per cubic centimeter. Then the above teaching (of Callahan) reads on the claimed limitation of “wherein the high-compressed region has a density that is at least twice that of the low-compressed regions” because 0.20 grams per cubic centimeter (i.e. density of the high-compressed region) is at least twice that of 0.10 grams per cubic centimeter (i.e. density of the low-compressed regions); emphasis added.
wherein the high-compressed region imparts structural rigidity to the packaging component to retain a shape of the packaging component and maintain position of the low-compressed region (Callahan Col. 5 ln. 44 – Col. 8 ln. 3 and Figs. 1-3).
Examiner’s note: the arrangement of the high-compressed region (26; as shown in Callahan Fig. 1) is substantially identical to that the claimed arrangement of the high-compressed region (specifically Fig. 4c of the instant app). Since, the high-compressed region (of Callahan) is denser or more compact in comparison to the [discrete] low compressed regions (of Callahan). The high-compressed region (of Callahan) is considered to inherently have higher stiffness; therefore, the structural rigidity in that particular region (of the overall packaging component) will be relatively high as compared to the [discrete] low-compressed regions. Basically, the high compressed region (of Callahan) DOES IN FACT impart structural rigidity to retain a shape of the overall packaging component and capable of maintaining positioning of the low-compressed region (much liked the claimed invention); emphasis added. See MPEP §2112.01(I) or MPEP §2112.01(II)
However, Callahan fails to teach wherein the high-compressed region has a total surface area greater than that of the low-compressed region.
Trokhan is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Callahan, which is a variably-compressed packaging component or element. Trokhan teaches a variably-compressed packaging component embodiment (as shown in Figs. 4-4a) comprising:
a unitary body form of plant-based fibers (i.e. pulp), wherein the unitary body comprises:
a high-compressed region (11w); and
a low-compressed region (12w), and
wherein the high-compressed region has a total surface area greater than that of the low-compressed region (Trokhan Col. 14 ln. 31 – Col. 15 ln. 9).
Examiner’s note: the arrangement of the high-compressed region (as shown in Trokhan Figs. 4-4a) is substantially identical to that the claimed arrangement of high-compressed region (specifically Fig. 4a of the instant app). In other words, Trokhan shows there is more spacing (i.e. the claimed high-compressed region) between the domes (12w – i.e. the claimed low-compressed region). The spacing depicts or correlates to the total surface area covered or occupied by the high-compressed region. Since, there is more spacing, then in Fig. 4-4a (of Trokhan) clearly shows that the surface area of the high-compressed region is greater than the surface area occupied by the low-compressed region; emphasis added.
With this in mind, 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 high-compression region (of Callahan) to have a higher total surface area than the low-compressed region (as taught by Trokhan) to adjust the overall cushioning properties of the overall packaging component.
Since, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)
Alternative art rejection(s):
Claims 1, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trokhan et al. (US 5935381 A; hereinafter Trokhan).
Regarding claim 1, Trokhan teaches a variably-compressed packaging component embodiment (as shown in Figs. 4-4a), comprising:
a unitary body form of plant-based fibers (i.e. pulp), wherein the unitary body comprises:
a high-compressed region (11w) imparting structural rigidity to the packaging component; and
discrete low-compressed regions (12w), and
wherein the variably-compressed component is a finished packaging component (Trokhan Col. 14 ln. 31 – Col. 15 ln. 9).
Examiner’s note: the arrangement of the high-compressed region (11w as shown in Trokhan Figs. 4a-b) is substantially identical to that the claimed arrangement of the high-compressed region (specifically Fig. 4c of the instant app). Since, the high-compressed region (of Trokhan) is denser or more compact in comparison to the [discrete] low compressed regions (of Trokhan). The high-compressed region (of Trokhan) is considered to inherently have higher stiffness; therefore, the structural rigidity in that particular region (of the overall packaging component) will be relatively high as compared to the [discrete] low-compressed regions. Basically, the high compressed region (of Trokhan) DOES IN FACT impart structural rigidity (much liked the claimed invention); emphasis added. See MPEP §2112.01(I) or MPEP §2112.01(II)
However, Trokhan does not explicitly teach wherein the high-compressed region has a density that is at least twice that of the [discrete] low-compressed regions.
Therefore, 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 high compressed region (of Trokhan) to have a density that is at least twice that of the [discrete] low-compressed regions (of Trokhan) to adjust the shock-absorbing and/or structural properties of the overall packaging.
Since, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)
In addition, it is noted that NOWHERE in the original disclosure, the applicant POINTS OUT the criticality for the claimed dimension(s) or range(s); emphasis added.
Regarding claim 25, modified Trokhan as above further teaches wherein the [discrete] low-compressed regions are dome-shaped (Trokhan Col. 3 ln. 15-18 and Col. 14 ln. 36-50).
Regarding claim 26, modified Trokhan as above further teaches wherein the high compressed region has a first rigidity, and the [discrete] low compressed regions have a second rigidity less than the first rigidity.
Examiner’s note: Since, the high-compressed region (of Trokhan) is denser or more compact in comparison to the [discrete] low compressed regions (of Trokhan). In other words, the high-compressed region (of Trokhan) is considered to inherently have higher stiffness; therefore, the structural rigidity in that particular region (of the overall packaging component) will be relatively high (i.e. the claimed first rigidity). Whereas, the [discrete] low compressed regions are less dense or less compact [when compared to the high compressed region]; therefore, those [discrete] low compressed regions will inherently have a lower stiffness (i.e. the claimed second rigidity). The overall arrangement of the high compressed region and the discrete low compressed regions (of Trokhan) is nearly identically to the claimed arrangement; emphasis added. See MPEP §2112.01(I) or MPEP §2112.01(II)
Claims 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trokhan et al. (US 5935381 A; hereinafter Trokhan) in view of Hermanson et al. (US 11358775 B2; hereinafter Hermanson).
Regarding claims 22 and 24, Trokhan teaches wherein the unitary body further comprises an upper side and a lower side opposite the upper side, and wherein the [discrete] low-compressed regions protrude from the upper side (see Trokhan figs. 4a).
However, Trokhan does not explicitly teach the [discrete] low-compressed regions protruding from the lower side.
Hermanson is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Trokhan, which is a variably-compressed packaging component or element. Hermanson teaches a variably-compressed packaging component embodiment (160; as shown in figs. 14-16) comprising:
a unitary body formed of plant-based fibers (specifically cellulosic fibers), wherein the unitary body comprises:
a high compressed region (i.e. in the form of webbing area (166)) imparting structural rigidity to the packaging component; and
discrete low-compressed regions (i.e. the form circular shaped pockets (162); as shown in Figs. 14-16),
wherein the variably-compressed component is a finished packaging component; and
wherein the unitary body further comprises an upper side and a lower side opposite the upper side, and wherein the [discrete] low-compressed regions protrude from the upper side AND the lower side (Hermanson Col. 9 ln. 62 – Col. 10 ln. 33).
With this in mind, 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 [discrete] low-compressed regions (of Trokhan) to have a circular shape and protrude from the upper side AND the lower side of the unitary body (as taught by Hermanson) to adjust or enhance the overall shock-absorbing properties of the overall packaging component by providing additional [discrete] low-compressed regions on the lower side of the unitary body.
Since, a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A)
Regarding claim 23, modified Trokhan as above further teaches all the structural limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 22 (respectively), except for wherein the [discrete] low-compressed regions protruding from the upper side of the unitary body are offset from the [discrete] low-compressed regions protruding from the lower side of the unitary body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to offset the [discrete] low-compressed regions protruding from the upper side of the unitary body from the [discrete] low-compressed regions protruding from the lower side of the unitary body because the resultant structure(s) will work equally well.
Since, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(C)
In addition, it is noted that NOWHERE in the original disclosure, the applicant POINTS OUT the criticality for the claimed shape(s) AND claimed arrangement(s); emphasis added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21, 2026 with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10 (respectively) presented in the previous office action (dated 10/28/2025) have been fully considered but they ARE NOT persuasive for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s argument: Applicant argues that claim amendment presented address all of the previously mentioned claim objections in the last office action (dated 10/28/2025; see Remarks pg. 6).
Examiner’s response: Upon further review of the amendments presented, applicant has not addressed all of the previously mentioned claim objections AND in fact raised new claim objections as noted above; emphasis added.
Applicant’s argument: applicant argues that the applied art (Callahan and Trokhan) DO NOT disclose or teach the claimed features of the pending claims (specifically claims 1-5, 7-8 and 10). To further support this assertion, applicant further argues that the prior structure(s), specifically the respective high-compressed region (of Callahan AND Trokhan) IS NOT imparting any structural rigidity to the packaging component NOR CANNOT they be considered a packaging component as they are “…directed to non-woven fibrous webs used for disposable towels/wipes….paper towels, facial tissues….and the like…” (see Remarks pgs. 6-8).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion. In the art rejection above, examiner further clarifies or explains as how the prior structure(s) (of Callahan AND Trokhan) discloses or teaches the new limitations (specifically see examiner’s note about “structural rigidity” throughout the art rejection(s) above).
Examiner has construed that the new limitation(s) of “imparting structural rigidity” as functional limitation(s). The examiner has treated such claim language (specifically the noted limitation above) in accordance with the MPEP and applicable case law. In other words, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (i.e. structure rather than function). If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim (see MPEP §2114); emphasis added.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the overall structure (of Callahan AND Trokhan) IS NOT the same as the claimed packaging component. As examiner explained and discussed (during the interview held on 01/06/2026), the term “packaging component” is a very broad term and can encompassed a wide range of structure(s). Basically, an inventor considering “variably compressed packaging component” would naturally look to other references employing variably compressed packaging component which may come from areas such as embossed paper products such as disposable towels/wipes, paper towels, facial tissues, toilet tissues and so on. See MPEP §2143(B)
With respect to the applicant’s argument that the cited references do not identify the problem disclosed by the inventors. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by [applicant]. See MPEP §2144(IV)
Lastly, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and/or columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or prior art(s) disclosed by the Examiner (in the attached PTO-892 form).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights