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 .
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 1-2, 5-6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustace 2010/0084354 in view of Tsai 2017/0238703.
Regarding claim 1, Eustace discloses a support beam (Figs 6 & 9, #2) for supporting a shelf assembly, comprising:
a first vertical component (Fig 9, #22);
a second vertical component (Fig 9, #28), positioned with the first vertical component (Fig 9, #22) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Fig 9, #24) connected to the first vertical component (Fig 9, #22);
a connecting component (Fig 9, #26) connected to the horizontal component (Fig 9, #24) and to an upper end of the second vertical component (Fig 9, #28), wherein the connecting component (Fig 9, #26) has a diagonal orientation such that the connecting component (Fig 9, #26) angles downwards towards the second vertical component (Fig 9, #28); and
an extending component (annotated Fig 9 below) having a first end (annotated Fig 9 below) and a second end (annotated Fig 9 below) and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) at the second end (as shown in Fig 9), wherein the extending component has a first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) extending from the first end, and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) and that of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) is between 0 and 145 degrees (0 degrees) (for clarification, the examiner maintains that the extending direction (straight vertical direction) of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) is parallel to the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) therefore, the angle between the extending direction of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) and the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) is 0 degrees); wherein the distance between the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) and the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) can vary (i.e. the dimension of the width of the bottom wall (Fig 9, #30) can vary (can be shorter)) [0031].
PNG
media_image1.png
853
1035
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
853
1035
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
864
1035
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Eustace has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the distance between the second vertical component and the first straight portion is shorter than the horizontal component.
Tsai discloses a support beam (Fig 6, #313) for supporting a shelf assembly, comprising:
a first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below);
a second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below), positioned with the first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Fig 6, #3132) connected to the first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below);
and an extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) having a first end (annotated Fig 6 below) and a second end (annotated Fig 6 below) and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) at the second end (annotated Fig 6 below), wherein the extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) has a first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) extending from the first end (annotated Fig 6 below), and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) and that of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) is between 0 and 145 degrees (0 degrees); wherein the distance between the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) and the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) is shorter than the horizontal component (Fig 6, #3132) (claim 1); wherein the extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) further has a U shape section (annotated Fig 6 below) between the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) and the second end (annotated Fig 6 below) (claim 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
712
987
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
775
953
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
672
847
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance between the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of Eutace and the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of Eustace to be slightly shorter than the horizontal component (Eustace, Fig 9, #24) using the teachings of Tsai in order to make the support beam (Eustace, Fig 9, #2) more aesthetically appealing. Further, Eustace discloses that the distance between the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) and the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) can vary (i.e. the dimension of the width of the bottom wall (Eustace Fig 9, #30) can vary (can be shorter)) [0031], therefore, making the distance between the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of Eustace and the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of Eustace to be slightly shorter than the horizontal component (Eustace, Fig 9, #24) would be obvious.
Further, in the alternative, if Eustace does not explicitly teach wherein an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion and that of the second vertical component is between 0 and 145 degrees, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) and that of the second vertical component(Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) to be between 0 and 145 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, such a modification would make the support beam (Eustace, Figs 6 & 9, #2) of Eustace more aesthetically appealing.
Regarding claim 2, the first embodiment (Eustace, Figs 5-9) of modified Eustace has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein a material of the support beam comprises metal or plastic.
Eustace discloses a second embodiment (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c) of a support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) wherein a material of the support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) comprises metal (Eustace, [0004]) or plastic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the support beam (Eustace, Figs 5-6, #2) of the first embodiment (Eustace, Figs 5-9) of modified Eustace to be made of metal as taught by a second embodiment (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c) of Eustace (Eustace, [0004]) because the substitution of one known material for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In addition, metal is well known in the art for being an easily accessible, inexpensive, and durable material.
Regarding claim 5, modified Eustace discloses the support beam according wherein the extending component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) further has a U shape section (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) between the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) and the second end (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 6, modified Eustace discloses the support beam wherein the extending component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) further has at least one arc section (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) between the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) and the second end (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Eustace discloses a shelving system (Eustace, Figs 3-6) (Eustace, [0035]-[0037] & [0039]), comprising:
a plurality of corner posts (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #1) (Eustace, [0035] [0039]);
a plurality of beams (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) (Eustace, [0035] [0039]), wherein each beam (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) [0035] [0039] is configured to be adjustably coupled to a pair of corner posts (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #1) (Eustace, [0035] [0039]) and at least one of the beams (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) (Eustace, [0035] [0039]) is the support beam according to claim 1; and
at least one shelf (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #5) configured to rest on at least two of the plurality of beams (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) (Eustace, [0036] [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Eustace discloses the shelving system further comprising at least one fixing beam (Eustace, Fig 3, #40) (Eustace, [0037] [0039]) attached to two of the plurality of beams (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) (Eustace, [0035][0037] [0039]) that are arranged opposite each other in the shelving system (Eustace, as shown in Figs 2 & 3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eustace 2010/0084354 and Tsai 2017/0238703; and further in view of Li 11,344,114.
Regarding claim 9, modified Eustace disclose the support beam, wherein each of the first vertical component (Eustace, Fig 9, #22) and the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) at two ends of the support beam (Eustace, Figs 5-6 & 9, #2) further has a rivet (Eustace, Fig 8, #30 & #32), respectively, for riveting.
Modified Eustace has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first vertical component and the second vertical component at two ends of the support beam further has an opening, respectively, for receive the rivets.
Li discloses a support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) wherein at least a vertical
component (shown in Fig 2) of the support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) at two ends of the support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) further has an opening (Fig 2, #7), respectively, for receiving rivets (Fig 2, #6) (col 3, lines 39-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first vertical component (Eustace, Fig 9, #22) of modified Eustace and the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of modified Eustace to each have an opening or hole (Li, Fig 2, #7) that receives the rivets (Eustace, Fig 8, #30 & #32) therethrough as taught by Li because the substitution of one known rivet mounting means (i.e. inserting rivets through holes in the support beam or gluing/welding rivets to the support beam) for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen 1,829,009 in view of Tsai 2017/0238703.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Madsen discloses a support beam (Fig 1, A) for supporting a shelf assembly (Figs 2 & 4, #20), comprising:
a first vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #12);
a second vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #18), positioned with the first vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #12) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Figs 1 & 4, #14) connected to the first vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #12);
a connecting component (Figs 1 & 4, #16) connected to the horizontal component (Figs 1 & 4, #14) and to an upper end of the second vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #18), wherein the connecting component (Figs 1 & 4, #16) has a diagonal orientation such that the connecting component (Figs 1 & 4, #16) angles downwards towards the second vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #18).
Madsen has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach an extending component having a first end and a second end and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component at the second end, wherein the extending component has a first straight portion extending from the first end, and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion and that of the second vertical component is between 0 and 145 degrees; wherein the distance between the second vertical component and the first straight portion is shorter than the horizontal component (claim 1); wherein the extending component further has a U shape section between the first straight portion and the second end (claim 5).
Tsai discloses a support beam (Fig 6, #313) for supporting a shelf assembly, comprising:
a first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below);
a second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below), positioned with the first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Fig 6, #3132) connected to the first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below);
and an extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) having a first end (annotated Fig 6 below) and a second end (annotated Fig 6 below) and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) at the second end (annotated Fig 6 below), wherein the extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) has a first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) extending from the first end (annotated Fig 6 below), and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) and that of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) is between 0 and 145 degrees (0 degrees); wherein the distance between the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) and the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) is shorter than the horizontal component (Fig 6, #3132) (claim 1); wherein the extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) further has a U shape section (annotated Fig 6 below) between the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) and the second end (annotated Fig 6 below) (claim 5).
PNG
media_image4.png
712
987
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
775
953
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
672
847
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach an extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) to the lower end of the second vertical component (Madsen, Fig 1, #18) of Madsen in order to make the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) of Madsen more strudy by reinforcing the lower portion of the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) to prevent any unwanted twisting movement or torque (Tsai, [0047]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Madsen discloses the support beam wherein the extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) further has at least one arc section (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) between the first straight portion (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) and the second end (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Madsen 1,829,009 and Tsai 2017/0238703; and further in view of Eustace 2010/0084354.
Regarding claim 2, modified Madsen has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein a material of the support beam comprises metal or plastic.
Eustace discloses a support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) wherein a material of the support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) comprises metal (Eustace, [0004]) or plastic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) of modified Madsen to be made of metal as taught by Eustace (Eustace, [0004]) because the substitution of one known material for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In addition, metal is well known in the art for being an easily accessible, inexpensive, and durable material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “Applicant believes that Figs. 1~7 and 10~12 all disclose the same essential structural feature, namely, a connecting component that is straight and diagonally oriented, as recited in independent claim 1. This feature is the defining inventive concept of claims 1~12, including dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10. As such, these claims incorporate all limitations of independent claim 1 and are directed to embodiments that are not patentably distinct from each other. In particular:
The straight and diagonal configuration of the connecting component is clearly illustrated and consistently maintained across the embodiments shown in Figs. 1~7 and 10~12. The dependent claims merely add minor structural refinements or variations in detail to the same fundamental concept, and do not alter the core inventive subject matter. The figures themselves, although differing in certain implementation details (e.g., presence of openings, rivets, or minor geometric variations), do not embody distinct inventions, but rather illustrate variations within a single inventive concept—a shelving system incorporating a diagonally oriented, straight connecting component linking vertical supports. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the embodiments in Figs. 1~7 and 10~12 and the associated claims 1~12 should be treated as a single invention. As such, the pending dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10, which depend on and further limit independent claim 1, should not be withdrawn from consideration.
Applicant continues to respectfully request that the restriction requirement be withdrawn or modified, and that the election of Group I be acknowledged without withdrawal of the dependent claims that fall within the scope of the elected group and inventive concept” are not persuasive.
The examiner maintains that the applicant’s arguments regarding traversing the 11/29/2024 Restriction Requirement were addressed in the previous Non-Final Office Action filed on 1/16/2025. The restriction requirement was made final in the 1/16/2025 Non-Final Office action and claims 3-4, 7-10, and 13-25 remain withdrawn.
Applicant arguments that “As stated in paragraph [0031] of Eustace, “The width of the horizontal wall 24 is about 144 inch... The width of the bottom wall 30 is about 14 inches,” indicating that the width of the horizontal wall 24 is equal to that of the bottom wall 30. This structural relationship is fundamentally different from that of the present invention, which expressly claims that the distance between the second vertical component (12) and the first straight portion (153) is shorter than the horizontal component (13). Under MPEP 2131, for a reference to be anticipatory under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1), it must expressly or inherently disclose all elements of the claimed invention arranged as in the claim. However, Eustace fails to disclose at least the key limitations of “the extending component has a first straight portion extending from the first end, and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion and that of the second vertical component is between 0 and 145 degrees” and “wherein the distance between the second vertical component and the first straight portion is shorter than the horizontal component.” are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Further, the examiner maintains that the extending direction of the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) and the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) are parallel to each other as shown in Fig 9 of Eustace, therefore the angel between the extending direction of the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) and the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) is illustrated as 0 degrees in Fig 9 of Eustace.
Applicant’s arguments that “With respect to Claim 2, the Examiner asserts that the claimed feature is disclosed in paragraph [0004] of Eustace. However, Eustace merely states that the cross-beams may be made of steel and does not teach or suggest that plastic or other types of metals are suitable materials. As Claim 2 depends on Claim 1, which is not anticipated by Eustace, it is respectfully submitted that Claim 2 is likewise neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by Eustace, and should therefore be considered patentable over the cited reference” are not persuasive.
The examiner maintains that Claim 2 only requires that the support beam comprises metal or plastic. The examiner maintains that steel is a metal therefore the limitations of claim 2 have been addressed as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Applicant’s arguments that “The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention of Claims 1 and 5 is taught by Madsen in view of Tsai. However, as described in paragraph [0047] of Tsai, “a reinforcing wall 315 [is] integrally extended and inwardly folded on the vertical beam wall 313 at a bottom edge thereof to bias against the post locker 32,” and “at least one longitudinal reinforcing rib 316 [is] integrally and outwardly extended from the vertical beam wall 311.” Tsai further explains that “the reinforcing wall 315 is inwardly folded to overlap on an inner side of the vertical beam wall 313... wherein the reinforcing wall 315 and the bottom portion of the vertical beam wall 313 also form a double wall structure to reinforce the structure of the vertical beam wall 313 to prevent any twisting movement or torque created thereat.” These descriptions indicate that Tsai relies on conventional folded double-wall structures (elements 314 and 315), which are formed by simply folding the material inward or outward.
In contrast, the present invention does not utilize a folded wall. Instead, it features a structural configuration in which a substantive distance is maintained between the two surfaces, with the bottom structure being specifically designed and engineered to achieve improved mechanical performance. This configuration is not the result of a simple fold, but requires specially designed roll-forming tooling to manufacture, which differs significantly from conventional folding techniques. The resulting structure achieves a substantial increase in strength and stability, providing a vertical load and twisting resistance improvement of over 20% compared to traditional folded double-wall constructions. Accordingly, Tsai does not teach or suggest the structural features recited in independent Claim 1, and therefore, the combination of Madsen and Tsai does not render Claims 1 and 5 unpatentable.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
In the instant case, the examiner maintains that the combination of Madsen and Tsai discloses the claim limitations of claim 1 above. Further, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant’s arguments that “It is respectfully submitted that Claims 1 and 5 are allowable over the cited references. Therefore, the rejections are all respectfully traversed on the grounds that neither Eustace, Li, Madsen nor Tsai, whether considered individually or in any reasonable combination, discloses or suggests the claimed features of “the extending component has a first straight portion extending from the first end, and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion and that of the second vertical component is between 0 and 145 degrees” and “wherein the distance between the second vertical component and the first straight portion is shorter than the horizontal component” are not persuasive.
The examiner maintains that the extending direction of the first straight portion (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) of modified Madsen and the second vertical component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) of modified Madsen are parallel to each other as shown in Fig 6 of Tsai, therefore the angel between the extending direction of the first straight portion (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) of modified Madsen and the second vertical component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) of modified Madsen is illustrated as 0 degrees in Fig 6 of Tsai.
In determining obviousness, it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review (In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In particular, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention be expressly suggested in any one or all references (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007)). In an obviousness analysis it is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account (Id. at 1741). In the instant case, the examiner maintains that a person armed with Madsen and Tsai would have readily understood how an extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) would be attached to the lower end of the second vertical component (Madsen, Fig 1, #18) of Madsen in order to make the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) of Madsen more strudy by reinforcing the lower portion of the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) to prevent any unwanted twisting movement or torque (Tsai, [0047]) without benefit of impermissible hindsight since the combination only involves well known elements combined in a well known manner. Such modifications are of ordinary innovation.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7:30pm.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 571-272-8227. 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.
/DEVIN K BARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631