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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the element numbers 10 and 20 disclosed in the spec should be shown on the drawings or the numbers removed from the specifications. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without undue experiments, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 1 recites “f) comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio to determine the concentration of the target gas in the unknown sample by extrapolation or interpolation.”
The specification discloses:
In ¶0006-¶0007 calibration ratios of readings of a known gas concentration over a null sample and test ratio for an unknown sample but there is no clear definition of these ratios, specifically test ratio for an unknown sample gas is a parameter that even cannot be guessed from a common knowledge or prior art.
In ¶00012 Bleasdale regression is disclosed for chemiresistors, Examiner assumes these coefficients of a,b,c are correlated to calibration ratio. in ¶00013 the comparison for sample ratio and calibration ratio is cited but there is not clear definition what is sample ratio. If sample ratio is correlated to the coefficients a,b,c ? if it is unknown gas, then how they are determined? (Examiner also notes that since the invention is claimed for other type of sensors, there is no disclosure how or if the Bleasdale regression that is for chemiresistors is used for other type of sensors.)
In ¶00017-¶00023 the circuit to determine change in resistance over time has been described.
in Table I :¶0024-¶0026 and ¶00019, it discloses gas concentration scores, gas measured using the circuit in FIG. 1 was hydrogen (H2) in breath. In Table I, discloses first tests data for the system with air, then performs a test on a source with a higher hydrogen gas concentration, like breath. The resistance measured lowers over a 5 second period, as shown by the decreasing counts in Table I in each column, with the lowest resistance reading (the row marked “lowest” in Table I) being considered reliable, and that reading being applied as the result from the sample used to determine the hydrogen gas concentration by comparison with the calibration ratios, previously tested. Another test using air was performed for each sample (each column in Table I) as indicated by the readings in the rows marked 4, 3, 2, 1 and Ro. These time count readings are higher, indicating a higher resistance in air than in the samples with higher hydrogen concentrations.
But there is no disclosure of how sample ratio are defined and how they are determined and compared to determine the concentration of the target gas in the unknown sample by extrapolation or interpolation , there is not even one simple clear example of these calibration and test ratios and there is no disclosure of one simple example of comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio to determine the concentration of the target gas in the unknown sample by extrapolation or interpolation.”
Turning to MPEP 2164.01(a), i.e. the Wands factors, Examiner finds the breath of the claims, the state of the prior art, and the lack of working examples are sufficient evidences that the disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement, and undue experimentation would be required.
Claim 9 has similar subject matter and rejected for the same reason.
Remaining claims are rejected at least due to their dependencies.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “calibration ratio “ and “test ratio” with no simple definitions. These ratio are not a formally defined in the international vocabulary or prior art, and there is not clear definition in the specification. Therefore, they render claim indefinite. Examiner broadly interprets “calibration ratio “ and “test ratio” as ratio of output signal and known or reference concentration. Then claim in last paragraph recites “f) comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio to determine the concentration of the target gas in the unknown sample by extrapolation or interpolation.” This limitation is not enabled, therefore it is not clear what it means by comparing calibration ratio (known signal and known concentration) and test ratio (unknown signal and unknown concentration)? Rendering claim indefinite.
Furthermore, it is not clear what the limitation “where the gas sensor is calibrated once and then need not be calibrated at the time of measuring said gas concentration” means? Step f) in fact is a kind of calibration, although is performed by the processor and autocalibration, but still it is calibration, therefore it is not clear what it means rendering claim indefinite .
For examination, it is interpreted that any calibration process with claimed steps a) to e) teaches step f) and any auto calibration by a processor meets the limitation “where the gas sensor is calibrated once and then need not be calibrated at the time of measuring said gas concentration”.
Remaining claims are rejected because of their dependencies.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by PASCAL, WO 2017207594 A1.
Claim 1
PASCAL teaches:
A method of measuring a target gas concentration in an unknown sample by a gas sensor (100), where the gas sensor is calibrated once and then need not be calibrated at the time of measuring said gas concentration (e.g., fig.3C for option b, also reading other steps and doing auto calibration reads on this limitation), comprising:
a) establishing at least one calibration sample reading on the gas sensor for a calibration sample with a known concentration of target gas (e.g., page 6, step b of 3rd para, Fig.3B the readings on top graph for electrical signal to known concentration C);
b) establishing with the gas sensor a null reading for a first null sample with a concentration of target gas near zero (e.g., page 6, step b of 3rd para ,Fig.3A the profile on the top shows R0 that is signal for lowest concentration or null reading);
c) determining a calibration ratio of the calibration sample reading and the null sample reading (in top graph of fig.3B the ratio is electric signal I to concentration C of calibration or known gas); and
d) determining a test sample reading on the gas sensor for a test sample with an unknown concentration of the target gas (Fig.3A the profile on the top showing signal for any concentration in different time intervals);
e) determining a test ratio (fig.3B for the graph in the middle that is using ration of signal to C for test gas) of the test sample reading; and
f) comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio to determine the concentration of the target gas in the unknown sample by extrapolation or interpolation (Fig.3B lowest graph and Fig.3A lowest graph).
Claim 3
PASCAL teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the gas sensor is a semiconductor sensor (semiconductor MOX sensor 100 page 7, first para).
Claim 4
PASCAL teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the gas sensor is a chemiresistor (MOX sensor 100, page 7, first para).
Claim 5
PASCAL teaches the method of claim 4 wherein several readings are determined over a specified period for both the calibration sample chemiresistor readings and the test sample chemiresistor readings (e.g., page 6 for both calibration gas fig.3B TOP and sample gas on fig.3B middle) .
Claim 6
PASCAL teaches the method of claim 5 wherein the chemiresistor readings are represented by a change in a time signal (graphs fig.3A).
Claim 7
PASCAL teaches the method of claim 1 wherein the target gas is hydrogen, methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, nitric oxide, methane, ethanol, isoprene, acetone, isoprene, pentane, ethane or ethylene (VOCs e.g., page 5).
Claim 9
PASCAL teaches
A method of measuring a target gas concentration in an unknown sample by a chemiresistor gas sensor (MOX 100, page 7, first para), where the chemiresistor is calibrated once and then need not be calibrated at the time of measuring said gas concentration (auto calibration e.g., page 6 last para), comprising:
a) establishing at least one calibration sample reading (fig.3B TOP) on the chemiresistor (100) for a calibration sample with a known concentration of target gas (fig.3B top is obtained with known concentration and known electric signal I);
b) establishing with the chemiresistor a null reading for a first null sample with a concentration of target gas near zero (fig.3A);
c) determining a calibration ratio of the calibration sample reading and the null sample reading (fig.3A);
d) determining a test sample reading on the chemiresistor for a test sample with an unknown concentration of the target gas (fig.3B middle);
e) determining a test ratio of the test sample reading(fig.3B middle);
f) comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio to determine the concentration of the target gas in the unknown sample by extrapolation or interpolation(fig.3B middle);
and
g) determining a second test sample reading on the chemiresistor 100 for a second test sample with an unknown concentration of the target gas to determine the test ratio (), and comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio without repeating steps a to c (fig.3C).
Claim 10
PASCAL teaches the method of claim 9 wherein the chemiresistor readings are represented by a change in a time signal (fig.3A).
Claim 11
PASCAL teaches the method of claim 9 wherein the target gas is hydrogen, methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, nitric oxide, methane, ethanol, isoprene, acetone, isoprene, pentane, ethane or ethylene (VOCs e.g., page 5).
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.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASCAL, WO 2017207594 A1.
Claim 2
PASCAL teaches the method of claim 1 wherein several calibration sample readings are determined for several calibration samples each with a different known concentration of target gas, and several calibration ratios are determined from each calibration sample reading over a null reading, and the test ratio is compared with the calibration ratios to determine the target gas concentration in the test sample by interpolation.
PASCAL as cited above discloses the claimed invention (calibration sample readings are determined for calibration sample with a known concentration of target gas, and calibration ratio determined from calibration sample reading over a null reading, and the test ratio is compared with the calibration ratio to determine the target gas concentration in the test sample by interpolation) except for [for several calibration samples each with a different known concentration of target gas, and several calibration ratios are determined from each calibration sample reading over a null reading]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to [do the same steps for several samples with different known concentration], since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977).
Claims 8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PASCAL, WO 2017207594 A1 in view of Reinstaedtler, US 20160327541 A1.
Claim 8
PASCAL teaches the method of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the test sample is exhaled air.
In the similar field of endeavor, Reinstaedtler teaches wherein the test sample is exhaled air (e.g., ¶0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Reinstaedtler‘s exhaled air for PASCAL‘s test sample. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide information on many metabolic processes of the human body from analysis of the breath gas (Reinstaedtler ¶0004).
Claim 12
PASCAL teaches the method of claim 9 but does not teach wherein the test sample is exhaled air.
In the similar field of endeavor, Reinstaedtler teaches wherein the test sample is exhaled air (e.g., ¶0002).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Reinstaedtler‘s exhaled air for PASCAL‘s test sample. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide information on many metabolic processes of the human body from analysis of the breath gas (Reinstaedtler ¶0004).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US Patent No. 11143641. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the reference claims are narrower (contain more subject matter) than the broader application claims.
18482776
US11143641 “ 641”
1. A method of measuring a target gas concentration in an unknown sample by a gas sensor, where the gas sensor is calibrated once and then need not be calibrated at the time of measuring said gas concentration, comprising:
a) establishing at least one calibration sample reading on the gas sensor for a calibration sample with a known concentration of target gas;
b) establishing with the gas sensor a null reading for a first null sample with a concentration of target gas near zero;
c) determining a calibration ratio of the calibration sample reading and the null sample reading; and
d) determining a test sample reading on the gas sensor for a test sample with an unknown concentration of the target gas;
e) determining a test ratio of the test sample reading; and
f) comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio to determine the concentration of the target gas in the unknown sample by extrapolation or interpolation.
1. A method of measuring a target gas concentration in an unknown sample by a gas sensor, where the gas sensor is calibrated once and then need not be calibrated at the time of measuring said gas concentration, comprising:
a) establishing at least one calibration sample reading on the gas sensor for a calibration sample with a known concentration of target gas;
b) establishing with the gas sensor a null reading for a first null sample with a concentration of target gas near zero;
c) determining a calibration ratio of the calibration sample reading and the null sample reading;
d) establishing an additional null reading on the gas sensor for a second null sample with a concentration of target gas near zero;
e) determining a test sample reading on the gas sensor for a test sample with an unknown concentration of the target gas;
f) determining a test ratio of the test sample reading and the additional null reading; and
g) comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio to determine the concentration of the target gas in the unknown sample by extrapolation or interpolation.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein several calibration sample readings are determined for several calibration samples each with a different known concentration of target gas, and several calibration ratios are determined from each calibration sample reading over a null reading, and the test ratio is compared with the calibration ratios to determine the target gas concentration in the test sample by interpolation.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein several calibration sample readings are determined for several calibration samples each with a different known concentration of target gas, and several calibration ratios are determined from each calibration sample reading over a null reading, and the test ratio is compared with the calibration ratios to determine the target gas concentration in the test sample by interpolation.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the gas sensor is a catalytic bead sensor, a photoionization detector, an infrared point detector, an infrared image sensor, a semiconductor sensor, or a holographic gas sensor.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the gas sensor is a catalytic bead sensor, a photoionization detector, an infrared point detector, an infrared image sensor, a semiconductor sensor, or a holographic gas sensor.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the gas sensor is a chemiresistor.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the gas sensor is a chemiresistor.
.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein several readings are determined over a specified period for both the calibration sample chemiresistor readings and the test sample chemiresistor readings.
5. The method of claim 4 wherein several readings are determined over a specified period for both the calibration sample chemiresistor readings and the test sample chemiresistor readings
6. The method of claim 5 wherein the chemiresistor readings are represented by a change in a time signal.
6. The method of claim 5 wherein the chemiresistor readings are represented by a change in a time signal.
7. The method of claim 1 wherein the target gas is hydrogen, methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, nitric oxide, methane, ethanol, isoprene, acetone, isoprene, pentane, ethane or ethylene.
7. The method of claim 1 wherein the target gas is hydrogen, methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, nitric oxide, methane, ethanol, isoprene, acetone, isoprene, pentane, ethane or ethylene.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the test sample is exhaled air.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the test sample is exhaled air.
9. A method of measuring a target gas concentration in an unknown sample by a chemiresistor gas sensor, where the chemiresistor is calibrated once and then need not be calibrated at the time of measuring said gas concentration, comprising:
a) establishing at least one calibration sample reading on the chemiresistor for a calibration sample with a known concentration of target gas;
b) establishing with the chemiresistor a null reading for a first null sample with a concentration of target gas near zero;
c) determining a calibration ratio of the calibration sample reading and the null sample reading;
d) determining a test sample reading on the chemiresistor for a test sample with an unknown concentration of the target gas;
e) determining a test ratio of the test sample reading;
f) comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio to determine the concentration of the target gas in the unknown sample by extrapolation or interpolation; and
g) determining a second test sample reading on the chemiresistor for a second test sample with an unknown concentration of the target gas to determine the test ratio, and comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio without repeating steps a to c.
10. The method of claim 9 wherein the chemiresistor readings are represented by a change in a time signal.
11. A method of measuring a target gas concentration in an unknown sample by a chemiresistor gas sensor, where the chemiresistor is calibrated once and then need not be calibrated at the time of measuring said gas concentration, comprising:
a) establishing at least one calibration sample reading on the chemiresistor for a calibration sample with a known concentration of target gas;
b) establishing with the chemiresistor a null reading for a first null sample with a concentration of target gas near zero;
c) determining a calibration ratio of the calibration sample reading and the null sample reading;
d) establishing an additional null reading on the chemiresistor for a second null sample with a concentration of target gas near zero;
e) determining a test sample reading on the chemiresistor for a test sample with an unknown concentration of the target gas; f) determining a test ratio of the test sample reading and the additional null reading;
g) comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio to determine the concentration of the target gas in the unknown sample by extrapolation or interpolation; and
h) repeating steps d to g for a third null sample with a concentration of target gas near zero and determining a second test sample reading on the chemiresistor for a second test sample with an unknown concentration of the target gas to determine the test ratio, and comparing the test ratio to the calibration ratio without repeating steps a to c.
11. The method of claim 9 wherein the target gas is hydrogen, methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, nitric oxide, methane, ethanol, isoprene, acetone, isoprene, pentane, ethane or ethylene.
13. The method of claim 11 wherein the target gas is hydrogen, methane, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, nitric oxide, methane, ethanol, isoprene, acetone, isoprene, pentane, ethane or ethylene.
12. The method of claim 9 wherein the test sample is exhaled air.
14. The method of claim 11 wherein the test sample is exhaled air.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Travan, US20220236244A1
Travan teaches gas sensing device (100) for sensing a target gas, comprising:
a sensing unit (110) for sensing the target gas, the sensing unit being configured for providing a measurement signal (112) based on a concentration of the target gas in an environment of the gas sensing device (100), and
a signal calibration unit (130), configured for determining a calibrated measurement value (132) based on the measurement signal (112) and based on a calibration model (120), wherein the calibration model (120) is based on calibration data of a plurality of test sensor units having the same type as the sensor unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855