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 .
The examiner acknowledges applicant’s amendments to claims 1-17 and the addition of new claims 21-23 filed May 20, 2026. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed June 23, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, only an English translation of the CN 110029890 A reference listed on the IDS was provided, and not the original document. The CN 110029890 A reference has been listed by the examiner on a PTO-892 accompanying this office action.
US Patent 6059346 and US Publication 2019/0145135 listed on the IDS filed on June 23, 2026 have been stricken through since these documents were listed by the examiner on the PTO-892 dated January 26, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5, 11, 14, 17, 21, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 3, the claim should read as follows: “The movement system of claim 1, wherein a plunger of the presentment mechanism is moveable to a retracted position, such that a biasing element of the presentment mechanism is not in contact with the underside of the closure panel and is unloaded until the closure panel reaches the fully closed position, corresponding to a fully latched state of the latch, from the pop up position.”
In regards to claim 4, the claim should read as follows: “The movement system of claim 3, wherein the plunger is extended after closing of the closure panel to the fully closed position, such that the biasing member, positioned on the plunger, contacts the underside of the closure panel.”
In regards to claim 5, the claim should read as follows: “The movement system of claim 1, wherein the latch includes a cinch motor for providing a cinch operation of the latch to move the latch to a fully latched position corresponding to the fully closed position of the closure panel, wherein the presentment mechanism is disengaged from the underside of the closure panel during the cinch operation of the latch to the fully latched position, and wherein the presentment mechanism is moved to engage with the underside of the closure panel after the cinch motor has moved the latch to the fully latched position and the closure panel has reached the fully closed position.”
In regards to claim 11, line 7, the phrase “when in the latched state” should be inserted after the phrase “in the fully closed position,” in lines 11-13 should read as follows: “moving a portion of the presentment mechanism to a retracted state during movement of the closure panel towards the fully closed position, such that the presentment mechanism is disengaged from an underside of the closure panel,” and in line 18, the phrase “an underside” should be changed to “the underside.”
In regards to claim 14, the claim should read as follows: “The method of claim 13, wherein the biasing element is positioned on a plunger of the presentment mechanism, wherein the plunger is moveable to a retracted position, such that the biasing element is not in contact with the underside of the closure panel and is unloaded until the closure panel reaches the fully closed position, corresponding to a fully latched state of the latch, from the pop up position.”
In regards to claim 17, the claim should read as follows: “The method of claim 15, further comprising operating a cinch motor for cinching the latch to the latched state, with a biasing element of the presentment mechanism being in a loaded state when the latch is in the latched state and the closure panel is in the fully closed position.”
In regards to claim 21, the claim should read as follows: “The method of claim 14, wherein the plunger is extended after the closure panel reaches the fully closed position from the pop up position, such that the biasing element contacts with the underside of the closure panel.”
In regards to claim 23, lines 2 and 3, the phrase “to move the latch to a fully latched position” should be changed to “to transition the latch to a fully latched state,” in lines 3 and 5, each instance of the phrase “the hood” should be changed to “the closure panel,” and in lines 6 and 7, the phrase “after the cinch operation with the latch the latch maintaining the closure panel in the fully closed position” should be changed to “after the cinch operation is completed, such that the latch maintains the closure panel in the fully closed position.” This language is suggested to clarify that the cinch operation is completed, such that the spring engages with the underside of the closure panel.
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 3-5, 8, 9, 11-17, 21, and 23 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.
In regards to claim 3, the phrase “is moved out of contact” suggests the presence of a previously recited limitation in which the biasing element was in contact with the underside of the of the closure panel, such that the biasing element can then be “moved out of contact” as recited in claim 3, and the phrase “the biasing element remains unloaded” suggests the presence of a previously recited limitation in which the biasing element was initially unloaded such that it can “remain” unloaded. Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, does not recite any limitations regarding the biasing element, and therefore, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 3, the phrase “during the movement of the closure panel to the fully closed position from the pop up position such that the biasing element remains unloaded” suggests that the biasing element is unloaded in the fully closed position, which is not supported by the specification. Specifically, it is understood from the specification that the biasing element 15b does not contact and is unloaded or uncompressed in all the positions of the closure element other than the fully closed position, as discussed in Paragraph 57 of the specification. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 4, the relationship between the “closing” of the closure panel, as recited in claim 4, and the “fully closed position” of the closure panel, as recited in claim 1, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the plunger is extended after closing of the closure panel to the fully closed position, such that the biasing member, positioned on the plunger, contacts the underside of the closure panel, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 5, the relationship between the “movement of the latch to the fully latched position,” as recited in line 5, and the cinch operation of the latch, as recited in line 2, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the presentment mechanism is disengaged from the underside of the closure panel during the cinch operation of the latch to the fully latched position, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 11, it is unclear how the entirety of the presentment mechanism is moved to a retracted position, as suggested by the phrase “moving the presentment mechanism to a retracted position,” when it is understood from the specification that the plunger is the only portion of the presentment mechanism that moves to a retracted position. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as reciting that a portion of the presentment mechanism is moved to a retracted position. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 11, the phrase “such that the presentment mechanism disengages from an underside” suggests that a previously recited limitation suggested that the presentment mechanism was engaged with the underside of the closure panel, such that the presentment mechanism can now “disengage” from the underside. Since there is no previous engagement recited, the claim has been examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 11, the relationship between the “underside” of the closure panel, as recited in line 18, and the “underside” of the closure panel, as recited in line 13, is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “underside” in line 18 is equivalent to the “underside” in line 13, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 14, the relationship between the “retracted position” in claim 14 and the “retracted position” in claim 11 is unclear from the claim language. Based on the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 11(b) in Paragraph 11 above, it is understood from the specification that the plunger of claim 14 is the portion of the presentment mechanism that is moveable to the retracted position of claim 1, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 14, the phrase “is moved out of contact” suggests the presence of a previously recited limitation in which the biasing element was in contact with the underside of the of the closure panel, such that the biasing element can then be “moved out of contact” as recited in claim 14, and the phrase “remains unloaded” suggests the presence of a previously recited limitation in which the biasing element was initially unloaded such that it can “remain” unloaded. Claims 11 and 13, from which claim 14 depends, do not recite any limitations regarding the biasing element and its contact with the underside or its loading or unloading, and therefore, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 14, the phrase “during the movement of the closure panel to the fully closed position from the closure panel being in the pop up position such that the biasing element remains unloaded” suggests that the biasing element is unloaded in the fully closed position, which is not supported by the specification. Specifically, it is understood from the specification that the biasing element 15b does not contact and is unloaded or uncompressed in all the positions of the closure element other than the fully closed position, as discussed in Paragraph 57 of the specification. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 17, the phrase “with the biasing element of the presentment mechanism in an unloaded state” suggests, along with the other language of the claim, that when the latch has reached the latched state corresponding to the fully closed position of the closure panel, the biasing element is unloaded, however, it is understood from the specification that when the latch has reached the latched state at the end of the cinching operation, the biasing element contacts the underside of the closure panel and is therefore loaded or compressed so as to provide an upward force on the closure panel when the latched state of the latch is released. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as understood in light of the specification. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 21, the metes and bounds of the “closing” of the closure panel is unclear from the claim language and the relationship between the “closing” of the closure panel of claim 21 and the positions of the closure panel recited in claim 14 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the plunger is extended after the closure panel reaches the fully closed position from the pop up position, such that the biasing element contacts with the underside of the closure panel, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 23, the relationship between the “hood” recited in claim 23 and the “closure panel” recited in claim 1 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “hood” of claim 23 is equivalent to the “closure panel” of claim 1, and will be examined as such. The claims should use consistent terminology. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 23, it is unclear how the latch, which refers to multiple components that move relative to one another and have various positions, as a whole can have a fully latched position, when the latch has a fully latched state, in which the various components have associated positions and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claims 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 16, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the claims depend from claims 3 and 11.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lebsak et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0145135 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Lebsak et al. discloses a closure panel movement system in combination with a closure panel 12 of a frunk of a vehicle (Paragraphs 6, 56, and 57), the movement system moving the closure panel between a fully closed position 12A and a fully open position 12C (the closure panel being manually moved to the fully open position after being released by the latch), the movement system comprising: a latch 40, 42, 90, 94, 66 mounted to a body 11 of the vehicle (Figure 1) and having an unlatched state (state in which portion 132 of the latch releases the striker 22, Paragraph 71), the latch for maintaining the closure panel in the fully closed position; a presentment mechanism 70, 72 positioned between the closure panel and the body; and a presentment mechanism 70, 72 positioned between the closure panel and the body; wherein the presentment mechanism assists in movement of the closure panel from the fully closed position to a pop up position 12B of the closure panel (Figure 7A) by engaging an underside of the closure panel (engages an underside of the closure panel by engaging a striker mounted to the underside, Paragraph 57); wherein the presentment mechanism is disengaged from the underside of the closure panel during movement of the closure panel to the fully closed position (the movement of the closure panel to the fully closed position includes multiple portions, including a portion in which the closure panel is moving from the fully open position towards the pop up position, and therefore, the presentment mechanism is disengaged from the underside of the closure panel during the portion of the movement of the closure panel from the fully open position towards the pop up position).
In regards to claim 2, Lebsak et al. discloses that the pop up position of the closure panel corresponds to a secondary latch state of the latch (secondary latch state in which portion 132 of the latch holds the striker and thereby the closure panel in the pop up position, Figure 7A).
In regards to claim 5, Lebsak et al. discloses that the latch includes a cinch motor 38 for providing a cinch operation of the latch to move the latch to a fully latched position (Figure 2A) corresponding to the fully closed position of the closure panel, wherein the presentment mechanism is disengaged from the underside of the closure panel during the cinch operation of the latch to the fully latched position (at least the spring 72 of the presentment mechanism is not directly engaged with the underside of the closure panel, and is therefore, disengaged), and wherein the presentment mechanism is moved to engage with the underside of the closure panel after the cinch motor has moved the latch to the fully latched position and the closure panel has reached the fully closed position (at least the plunger 88 of the presentment mechanism is moved to indirectly engage with the underside of the closure panel via the striker in the fully latched position, Figure 2A).
In regards to claim 7, Lebsak et al. discloses that the presentment mechanism includes a biasing element 72 that is in an unloaded state when the cinch motor operates to move the latch to the fully latched position corresponding to the fully closed position of the closure panel (the biasing element is unloaded in the state in Figure 9B which would be the start of the cinching operation by the cinch motor to transition the latch to the fully latched position in Figure 2A, Paragraph 74).
In regards to claim 10, Lebsak et al. discloses that the latch includes at least one of a power release motor and a cinch motor 38.
In regards to claim 22, Lebsak et al. discloses that the presentment mechanism has a plunger 88 and a biasing element 72 positioned between the plunger and the closure panel (when in the fully closed position in Figure 2B, the end 84 of the biasing element is located closer to the closure panel than the plunger 88, and therefore, the biasing element has at least a portion positioned in the space between the plunger and the closure panel).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
31. 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.
32. 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 CFR 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.
33. Claim(s) 6, 11-13, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebsak et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0145135 A1) in view of Moon (US-6059346).
34. In regards to claim 6, Lebsak et al. discloses a controller 37 for electronically controlling movement of the closure panel and discloses that the latch includes an unlatched state (state in which portion 132 of the latch releases the striker 22, Paragraph 71). Lebsak et al. fails to disclose that the movement system includes a drive unit coupled to the closure panel for driving the closure panel, when the latch is in the unlatched state, to and from the fully open position, and the controller electronically controlling movement of the closure panel by using the drive unit to move the closure panel between the position of the closure panel corresponding to the unlatched state of the latch and the fully open position. Moon teaches a drive unit (Figure 1) coupled to a closure panel 7 for driving the closure panel, with the drive unit being controlled by controlling circuitry shown in Figure 1, when a latch is in an unlatched state (Col. 1, lines 28-47), to and from a fully open position (position shown with solid lines in Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a drive unit to move the closure panel to and from the fully open position, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the ease in which the closure panel is moved and since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
35. In regards to claim 11, Lebsak et al. discloses a method of operating a closure panel movement system in combination with a closure panel 12 of a frunk of a vehicle (Paragraphs 6, 56, and 57), the movement system moving the closure panel between a fully closed position 12A and a fully open position 12C (the closure panel being manually moved to the fully open position after being released by the latch), the method comprising: operating a latch 40, 42, 90, 94, 66 mounted to a body 11 of the vehicle (Figure 1) between a latched state (Figure 2B) and an unlatched state (state in which portion 132 of the latch releases the striker 22, Paragraph 71), the latch for maintaining the closure panel in the fully closed position when in the latched state; operating a presentment mechanism 70, 72 positioned between the closure panel and the body to move the closure panel with respect to a pop up position 12B (Figure 7A) of the closure panel (moves the closure panel to positions between the fully closed position and the pop up position, and therefore, moves the closure panel with respect to the pop up position); moving a portion of the presentment mechanism to a retracted position during movement of the closure panel towards the fully closed position (portion being component 70, with the portion 70 being moved to a retracted position in Figure 2A, corresponding to the fully closed position, from a position in Figure 9A at the beginning of the cinch operation to the fully closed position), such that the presentment mechanism is disengaged from an underside of the closure panel (the underside of the closure panel being the underside surface on which striker 22 is mounted, Paragraph 71, with the spring 72 of the presentment mechanism being disengaged or not in direct contact with the underside of the closure panel); wherein the presentment mechanism assists in movement of the closure panel from the fully closed position to the pop up position of the closure panel by engaging the underside of the closure panel (indirectly engaging the underside of the closure panel by the portion 70 of the presentment mechanism contacting the striker 22). Lebsak et al. fails to disclose operating a drive unit coupled to the closure panel for driving the closure panel, when the latch is in the unlatched state, to and from the fully open position. Moon teaches a drive unit (Figure 1) coupled to a closure panel 7 for driving the closure panel, when a latch is in an unlatched state (Col. 1, lines 28-47), to and from a fully open position (position shown with solid lines in Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to include a drive unit to move the closure panel to and from the fully open position, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to enhance the ease in which the closure panel is moved and since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
36. In regards to claim 12, Lebsak et al. discloses that the pop up position of the closure panel corresponds to a secondary latch state of the latch (secondary latch state in which portion 132 of the latch holds the striker and thereby the closure panel in the pop up position, Figure 7A).
37. In regards to claim 13, Lebsak et al. discloses that the presentment mechanism includes a biasing element 72 positioned adjacent to the closure panel when the closure panel is in the pop up position (Figure 7A).
38. In regards to claim 15, Lebsak et al. discloses that the latch includes a cinch motor 38 for providing a cinch operation of the latch.
39. In regards to claim 16, Lebsak et al. in view of Moon teaches a controller (controller 37of Lebsak et al. and controlling circuitry shown in Figure 1 of Moon) for electronically controlling movement of the closure panel by using the drive unit to move the closure panel between the position of the closure panel corresponding to the unlatched state of the latch and the fully open position.
40. In regards to claim 17, Lebsak et al. discloses that method further comprises operating a cinch motor 38 for cinching the latch to the latched state, with a biasing element 72 of the presentment mechanism being in a loaded state when the latch is in the latched state and the closure panel is in the fully closed position (Figures 2A and 2B).
Allowable Subject Matter
41. Claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 21, and 23 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
42. The claims were examined with the language set forth in the claim objections set forth in the current Office Action.
44. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claims 3, 14, 21, and 23.
45. In regards to claims 3 and 14, Lebsak et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0145135 A1) discloses a plunger 88 of the presentment mechanism is moveable to a retracted position (Figures 2B and 18B), such that a biasing element 72 of the presentment mechanism is not in contact with the underside of the closure panel (the biasing element does not contact or touch the closure panel during operation). Lebsak et al. fails to disclose that the biasing element is unloaded until the closure panel reaches the fully closed position, corresponding to a fully latched state of the latch, from the pop up position. The biasing element 72 of Lebsak et al. is loaded or put under tension when the plunger moves to the retracted position in Figure 18B, corresponding to the fully closed position, from the position of the plunger corresponding to the pop up position in Figures 7A and 9B, and therefore, the biasing element is not unloaded until the closure panel reaches the fully closed position. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Lebsak et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
46. In regards to claim 21, Lebsak et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0145135 A1) fails to disclose that the plunger is extended after the closure panel reaches the fully closed position from the pop up position, such that the biasing element contacts with the underside of the closure panel. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Lebsak et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
47. In regards to claim 23, Lebsak et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0145135 A1) discloses that the latch includes a cinch motor 38 for providing a cinch operation of the latch to transition the latch to a fully latched state (Paragraph 74) corresponding to the fully closed position of the closure panel, wherein the presentment mechanism includes a spring 72 that is configured to be disengaged from the underside of the closure panel during the cinch operation (the spring is not directly engaged with the underside of the closure panel, and is therefore disengaged from the underside of the closure panel). Lebsak et al. fails to disclose that the spring is configured to be disengaged from the underside of the closure panel during the cinch operation, and engaged with the underside of the closure panel after the cinch operation is completed, such that the latch maintains the closure panel in the fully closed position. The spring of Lebsak et al. remains out of direct engagement with the underside of the closure panel during the entire operation of the closure panel. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Lebsak et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Response to Arguments
48. In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, applicant is referred to the new interpretations of the Lebsak et al. reference applied to the claims in the current Office Action and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and corresponding claim objections applied to the claims in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
49. In light of applicant’s amendments to the drawings, the drawing objection set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
50. In light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn, however, new claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are set forth in the current Office Action based on applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
51. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
52. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights