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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed November 13, 2025 have been entered. Applicant’s amendments have overcome each and every Specification and Claim objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed November 13, 2025. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 remain pending, but stand rejected for the reasons detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues modifying Leigh with Chalverat would render Leigh inoperative (Arguments, page 11-13). Specifically, Applicant argues modifying Leigh with Chalverat would prevent the sliding connection between studs 106, 108 and alignment holes 90, 94 taught in Leigh. Id. However, Examiner submits Leigh as modified by Chalverat would not prevent such connection and would simply result in a hybrid connecting structure that would allow for the key-hole, sliding engagement (taught in Figure 7 of Leigh), while also allowing for a user to adjustably tighten the connection between the bearing seats (taught in Figure 6 of Leigh). More specifically, Chalverat teaches an adjustable stud that includes head portions (caps 1120, shoulder 1220) and a neck portion (sleeve 1210), similar to the head portion 116 and neck portion 118 taught in Leigh. A user could connect the adjustable studs of Chalverat to plate 104 in Leigh, slide the adjustable studs of Chalverat into alignment holes 90, 94 in Leigh (in the same manner taught in Figure 7 of Leigh), and then tighten down the adjustable studs of Chalverat to securely connect the bearing seats (in a similar manner taught in Figure 6 of Leigh). For these reasons, Examiner maintains Leigh as modified by Chalverat teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant further argues Hu does not teach a cable passing through the guide hole movably and is coupled to the first calculation module and the second calculation module (Arguments, pages 14-16). However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. 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). Examiner agrees Hu does not disclose the cited limitation, but notes the cited limitation is taught in Hayashi. Because Applicant does not challenge the combination of Hu as modified by Hayashi, Examiner maintains Hu in view of Hayashi teaches the cited limitation.
Applicant further argues Ross does not teach interconnection or electrical connection between the computing devices (Arguments, pages 16-17). However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. 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). Examiner agrees Ross does not teach the cited limitation, but submits the interconnection between adjacent computing devices is taught in Leigh and Watson.
Applicant further argues modifying Ross with Leigh and Watson would contradict the teaching of Ross, because Ross teaches half width computing devices that independently slide in and out of the shelving system (Arguments, pages 16-18). Specifically, Applicant argues the modification contradicts the fact that Ross teaches that “the half-width computing devices can be independently slid into and out of the shelving system” (Arguments, page 18). However, Examiner submits that Leigh and Watson teach the ability of half width modules separated by a dividing plate being capable of being interconnected, while also being independently slidable in and out of the shelving system. For example, Leigh teaches openings in bearing seats that allow a cable to connect electronic devices within adjacent bearing seats, and Watson teaches an opening in a limiting stand/divider plate that allows a cable to connect to electronic devices within adjacent bearing seats connected on either side of the limiting stand/divider plate. Examiner submits these modifications would not prohibit the bearing seat from independently sliding in and out of the server chassis, because the openings in Watson are specifically designed for such movement.
For these reasons, and the reasons detailed below, claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 stand rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 1, “The chassis” should read --The chassis for installing multiple computing elements--.
In claim 10, line 2, “passing” should read --passes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7 and 9-11 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 7 recites the limitations “the first calculation unit” and “the second calculation unit" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The cited limitations are introduced in dependent claim 9. For the purposes of examination, the limitations from claim 9 will be read into claim 7 to provide the requisite antecedent basis.
Claims 9-11 are rejected due to their dependency.
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 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leigh (US Publication No. 2008/0266815) in view of Chalverat (US Publication No. 2014/0082922).
Regarding claim 1, Leigh teaches a chassis for installing multiple computing elements, comprising: a housing (Figure 1, chassis 14) having an accommodating space (space accommodating blades 12); a first bearing seat (first 12) movably disposed in the accommodating space (space accommodating 12); a second bearing seat (second 12) movably disposed in the accommodating space (space accommodating 12) and adjacent to the first bearing seat (first 12); and a connecting partition plate (Figure 7, coupling device 98) disposed between the first bearing seat (first 12, corresponding to enclosure 86) and the second bearing seat (second 12, corresponding to enclosure 88) to fixedly connect the first bearing seat (first 12, 86) and the second bearing seat (second 12, 88), wherein the first bearing seat (first 12, 86) and the second bearing seat (second 12, 86) are adapted to synchronously move relative to the housing (14) to be accommodated in the accommodating space (space accommodating 12) or extend outside the accommodating space (space accommodating 12), wherein the connecting partition plate (98) has a connecting plate (plate 104), a plurality of engaging pillars (studs 108), and a plurality of studs 106), the connecting plate (104) is located between the first bearing seat (first 12, 86) and the second bearing seat (second 12, 88), the engaging pillars (108) are disposed on a lateral surface of the connecting plate (lateral surface of 104) and engaged to the second bearing seat (second 12, 88).
Leigh does not teach a plurality of screwing members, the screwing members pass through the first bearing seat and the connecting plate, and are screwed to a corresponding engaging pillar.
However, Chalverat teaches a first bearing seat (Figure 7B, component 401), a second bearing seat (component 403), and a connection partition plate (comprised of component 402, cap screw 2100, and sleeve nut 2200), wherein the connecting partition plate (402, 2100, 2200) is comprised of a connecting plate (402), a screwing member (2100), and an engaging pillar (2200) the connecting plate (402) is located between the first bearing seat (401) and the second bearing seat (403), the engaging pillars (2200) are disposed on a lateral surface of the connecting plate (Figure 7B, end of 2200 being located on a right side of the right surface of 402) and engaged to the second bearing seat (403), the screwing member (2100) passes through the first bearing seat (401), and the connecting plate (402) and are screwed to a corresponding engaging pillar (2200).
Because Leigh also suggests the first and second bearing seats can be mechanically fastened through a variety of different ways, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the plurality of members and engaging pillars of Leigh for the screw members and engaging pillars of Chalverat according to known methods to yield the predictable results of joining plates together by means of fastening members (see Figures 7B in Chalverat; see Figure 9 in Leigh).
Regarding claim 3, Leigh in view of Chalverat teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 1, and further teaches (in Figures 4 and 7 of Leigh) wherein the first bearing seat (Figure 4, first 26; Figure 7, enclosure 86) has a first hole (channel 36 of first 26, 86), the second bearing seat (Figure 4, second enclosure 26; Figure 7, enclosure 88) has a second hole (channel 36 of second 26, 88), and the first hole (first 36) is adjacent to the second hole (second 36).
Regarding claim 6, Leigh in view of Chalverat teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 1, and further teaches (see Figure 1 in Leigh) wherein the chassis (14) has two screwing plates (Paragraph [0012] and Figure 1, mounting brackets connecting chassis 14 to rack structure 16) disposed on opposite sides of the chassis (14).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leigh (US Publication No. 2008/0266815), Chalverat (US Publication No. 2014/0082922), and in further view of Pham (US Publication No. 2021/0410315).
Regarding clam 4, Leigh in view of Chalverat teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 1, but does not teach a plurality of dissipation plates respectively disposed on bottom surfaces of the first bearing seat and the second bearing seat and closely attached to an opening of the housing.
However, Pham discloses a plurality of heat dissipation plates (Figures 1-2, front covers 142A, 142B, including perforations 164; see Paragraph [0033]) respectively disposed on bottom surfaces of the first bearing seat (first tray 106A) and the second bearing seat (second tray 106B) and closely attached to an opening of the housing (openings in 102 accommodating 106A, 106B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the heat dissipation plates of Pham to the bearing seats of Leigh as modified by Chalverat. Doing so would have protected the internal components of the bearing seats from EMI, while also allowing heat to dissipate from the bearing seats (see Paragraph [0033] in Pham).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leigh (US Publication No. 2008/0266815), Chalverat (US Publication No. 2014/0082922), and in further view of Konovalov (US Publication No. 2018/0288895).
Regarding claim 5, Leigh in view of Chalverat teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 1, but does not teach a plurality of pull rings respectively disposed on outer edges of the first bearing seat and the second bearing seat and extending outside the housing.
However, Konovalov teaches a plurality of pull rings (Figures 1-2, handles 202; see also chassis handles 116) respectively disposed on outer edges of the first bearing seat (edge of first tray frame 210) and the second bearing seat (edge of second tray frame 210) and extending outside the housing (chassis 100).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the pull rings of Konovalov to the outer edges of the bearing seats of Leigh as modified by Chalverat. Doing so would have allowed an operator to manipulate the bearing seats to a withdrawn position (see Paragraphs [0079]-[0085] in Konovalov).
Alternatively, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leigh (US Publication No. 2008/0266815), Chalverat (US Publication No. 2014/0082922), and in further view of Hidaka (US Patent No. 2005/0257232).
Regarding claim 6, Leigh in view of Chalverat teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 1, and further suggests (see Figure 1 in Leigh) wherein the chassis (14) has two screwing plates (Paragraph [0012] and Figure 1, mounting brackets connecting chassis 14 to rack structure 16) disposed on opposite sides of the chassis (14).
However, Hidaka explicitly teaches wherein a chassis (Figure 3, enclosure 22) has two screwing plates (flange portions 26; see Paragraph [0059] and Figures 6-7) disposed on opposite sides of the chassis (22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the screws and screwing plate assembly of Hidaka to the chassis of Leigh as modified by Chalverat. Doing so would have allowed the chassis to be securely fastened within a server rack (see Paragraph [0059]-[0061] in Hidaka; see Figure 1 in Leigh).
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Publication No. 2013/0169131) in view of Hayashi (US Publication No. 2014/0029194).
Regarding claim 7, Hu discloses a chassis (see Figures 1-4) for installing multiple computing elements, comprising: a housing (Figures 1 and 4, enclosure 10) having an accommodating space (space within 10); a first bearing seat (Figures 1-4, first tray 31) movably disposed in the accommodating space (within 10); a second bearing seat (Figures 1-4, second tray 31) movably disposed in the accommodating space (within 10) and connected (through connecting member 33) to the first bearing seat (first 31); and a limiting stand (Figures 1 and 4, sidewalls 15) fixedly disposed in the housing (10) and having two sliding slots (defined by support portions 153) in which the first bearing seat (first 31) and the second bearing seat (second 31) are respectively disposed, wherein the first bearing seat (first 31) and the second bearing seat (second 31) are adapted to move linearly along the two sliding slots (defined by 153) to be accommodated in the accommodating space (within 10) or extend outside the accommodating space (outside 10), wherein the limiting stand (15) has a guiding hole (space between sidewalls 15) connecting the two sliding slots (defined by 153).
Hu does not disclose a first calculation module and a second calculation module respectively disposed in the first bearing seat and the second bearing seat, wherein a cable passes through the guide hole movably and is coupled to the first calculation module and the second calculation module.
However, Hayashi teaches a first calculation module (motherboard 174, including computer unit 175, of first, upper server module 120; see Paragraph [0058]) and a second calculation module (motherboard 174, including computer unit 175, of second, upper server module 120; see Paragraph [0058]) respectively disposed in the first bearing seat (first, upper 120) and the second bearing seat (second, upper 120), wherein a cable (Figure 6, power distribution unit 160 and wires connected between 160 and motherboards 174 establishing a segmented cable) passes through the guiding hole (space occupied by power source units 140 and power distribution unit 160, corresponding to space between 15 in Hu) movably (where power distribution unit 160 and wires connected between 160 and motherboards 174 are capable of being moved during the insertion/assembly process) and is coupled to the first calculation module (174 of first 120; see Figures 6-7) and the second calculation module (174 of second 120; see Figures 6-7).
Because Hu suggests the first and second bearing seats include server components (see Paragraph [0004] in Hu) and because the first and second bearing seats of Hu and Hayashi are identically formed (see Figures 1-2 in Hu; see Figures 1-2 in Hayashi), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the first and second calculation modules and server components of Hayashi to the first and second bearing seats of Hu. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the bearing seats by providing the seats with operational server components capable of storing and processing information (see Paragraphs [0057]-[0058] in Hayashi).
Because the first and second bearing seats of Hu and Hayashi are identically formed (see Figures 1-2 in Hu; see Figures 1-2 in Hayashi), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the cable and power source units of Hayashi to the guiding hole and first/second bearing seats of Hu as previously modified by Hayashi. Doing so would have increased the functionality of the chassis by supplying the calculation modules with an operational power supply (see Paragraphs [0066]-[0067] in Hayashi).
Regarding claim 9, Hu in view of Hayashi teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 7, and further teaches (in Hayashi) a first calculation module (motherboard 174, including computer unit 175, of first, upper server module 120; see Paragraph [0058]) and a second calculation module (motherboard 174, including computer unit 175, of second, upper server module 120; see Paragraph [0058]) respectively disposed in the first bearing seat (first, upper 120) and the second bearing seat (second, upper 120).
Regarding claim 10, Hu in view of Hayashi teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 9, and further teaches (in Hayashi) wherein the cable (Figure 6, comprised of power distribution unit 160 and wires connected between 160 and motherboards 174) passes through the first bearing seat (first 120) and the second bearing seat (second 120) through the guiding hole (space occupied by power source units 140 and power distribution unit 160, corresponding to space between 15 in Hu).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Publication No. 2013/0169131), Hayashi (US Publication No. 2014/0029194), and in further view of Li (US Patent No. 2023/0055697).
Regarding claim 11, Hu in view of Hayashi teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 7, but does not teach wherein the chassis has two screwing plates disposed on opposite sides of the chassis.
However, Li teaches wherein a chassis (server 100) has two screwing plates (sidewalls 16, including thumb screw fasteners 29; see Paragraph [0017]) disposed on opposite sides of the chassis (100; see Figures 1-2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the thumb screws and screwing plate assembly of Li to the chassis and bearing seats of Hu as modified by Hayashi. Doing so would have allowed the bearing seats to be securely fastened within the chassis through a toolless assembly structure (see Paragraph [0017] in Li).
Alternatively, claims 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US Publication No. 2013/0141863) in view of Leigh (US Publication No. 2008/0266815) and Watson (US Patent No. 9466964).
Regarding claim 7, Ross discloses a chassis for installing multiple computing elements, comprising: a housing (Figures 1-5, shelf 147) having an accommodating space (space within 147); a first bearing seat (first computing device 148) movably disposed in the accommodating space (space within 147); a second bearing seat (second computing device 148) movably disposed in the accommodating space (space within 147); and a limiting stand (divider 152) fixedly disposed in the housing (147) and having two sliding slots (defined by support rails 156) in which the first bearing seat (first 148) and the second bearing seat (second 148) are respectively disposed, wherein the first bearing seat (first 148) and the second bearing seat (second 148) are adapted to move linearly along the two sliding slots (defined by 156) to be accommodated in the accommodating space (space within 147) or extend outside the accommodating space (space within 147), a first calculation module (processor 136 in first 148) and a second calculation module (processor 136 in second 148) respectively disposed in the first bearing seat (first 148) and the second bearing seat (second 148).
Ross does not disclose wherein the second bearing seat is connected to the first bearing seat, and wherein the limiting stand has a guiding hole connecting the two sliding slots; wherein a cable passes through the guiding hole movably and is coupled to the first calculation module and the second calculation module.
However, Leigh teaches a chassis comprising a housing (chassis 14) accommodating a first bearing seat (first blade module 12) and a second bearing seat (second blade module 12), wherein the second bearing seat (Figure 4, blade 60 in Figure 4, corresponding to second 12) is connected (electrically connected) to the first bearing seat (Figure 4, first blade 58, corresponding to first 12); a first calculation module (processor 62) and a second calculation module (processor 64) respectively disposed in the first bearing seat (first 12, corresponding to 58 in Figure 4) and the second bearing seat (second 12, corresponding to 60 in Figure 4); wherein a cable (38) is coupled to the first calculation module (62) and the second calculation module (64).
Watson further teaches a chassis comprising a housing (Figure 3, system 300) comprising a limiting stand (horizontal divider defining elongate openings 324, 326, 328, 330) fixedly disposed in the housing (300) and having two sliding slots (first level 310, second level 312), wherein the limiting stand (horizontal divider) has a guiding hole (324, 326, 328, 330) connecting the two sliding slots (310, 312); wherein a cable (cables 320, 332, 334, 336) passes through the guiding hole (324, 326, 328, 330) movably (see Figure 3 and col. 8, ln. 41-67; col. 9, ln. 1-25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the electrical connection taught in Leigh between the first and second bearing seats of Ross by modifying the first and second bearing seats to include channels 36 from Leigh, and to have modified the limiting stand of Ross as modified by Leigh to include the elongate openings taught in Watson. Doing so would have allowed computing devices within different slots of the chassis to be connected and communicate with each other, while maintaining the computing devices’ ability to move in/out of the chassis (see col. 3, ln. 1-38 in Watson; see Paragraph [0001]-[0011] in Leigh).
Regarding claim 9, Ross in view of Leigh and Watson teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 7, further comprising a first calculation module (processor 136 in first 148 of Ross, as modified by Figure 4 of Leigh) and a second calculation module (processor 136 in second 148, as modified by Figure 4 of Leigh) respectively disposed in the first bearing seat (first 148 in Ross, as modified by Leigh) and the second bearing seat (second 148 in Ross, as modified by Leigh).
Regarding claim 10, Ross in view of Leigh and Watson teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 9, and further teaches wherein the cable (cable 38 in Leigh) passes through the first bearing seat (first 148 of Ross, as modified by Leigh) and the second bearing seat (second 148 of Ross, as modified by Leigh) through the guiding hole (324, 326, 328, 330 in Watson combined to 152 of Ross).
Regarding claim 11, Ross in view of Leigh and Watson teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 7, and further teaches (see Figure 1 in Leigh) wherein the chassis (14) has two screwing plates (Paragraph [0012] and Figure 1, mounting brackets connecting chassis 14 to rack structure 16) disposed on opposite sides of the chassis (14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the screws and screwing plate assembly of Leigh to the chassis of Ross as previously modified by Leigh and Watson. Doing so would have allowed the chassis to be securely fastened within a server rack (see Paragraph [0012] in Leigh; see Figures 3B in Ross).
Alternatively, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US Publication No. 2013/0141863), Leigh (US Publication No. 2008/0266815), Watson (US Patent No. 9466964), and in further view of Hidaka (US Patent No. 2005/0257232).
Regarding claim 11, Ross in view of Leigh and Watson teaches the chassis for installing multiple computing elements according to claim 7, and further suggests (see Figure 1 in Leigh) wherein the chassis (14) has two screwing plates (Paragraph [0012] and Figure 1, mounting brackets connecting chassis 14 to rack structure 16) disposed on opposite sides of the chassis (14).
However, Hidaka explicitly teaches wherein a chassis (Figure 3, enclosure 22) has two screwing plates (flange portions 26; see Paragraph [0059] and Figures 6-7) disposed on opposite sides of the chassis (22).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the screws and screwing plate assembly of Hidaka to the chassis of Ross as modified by Leigh and Watson. Doing so would have allowed the chassis to be securely fastened within a server rack (see Paragraph [0059]-[0061] in Hidaka; see Figure 3B in Ross).
Conclusion
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 GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc