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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/11/26 has been entered. Claims 30-37, and 39-42 are pending examination, claims 1-29, and 38 were canceled, and claims 43-48 are withdrawn.
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 30-37 and 39-42 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 30 recites the limitation "a sol-gel bonding formulation comprising sulfamic acid…being free of polycarboxylic acid" and further recites “an omniphobic or hydrophobic sol-gel formulation”. The particular phrasing of “a sol-gel bonding formulation” when viewed in combination with the additional “an omniphobic or hydrophobic sol-gel formulation” renders the claim indefinite with respect to the intended scope of the term “a sol-gel bonding formulation”. As “an omniphobic or hydrophobic sol-gel formulation” is applied following the “sol-gel bonding formulation” it is particularly indefinite as to if the nomenclature of “a sol-gel bonding formulation” is intending to require this formulation to (i) be an actual sol-gel formulation itself, or (ii) if it is drawing reference to the subsequently recited omniphobic or hydrophobic sol-gel formulation, thus merely be a formulation capable of “bonding” subsequently applied omniphobic or hydrophobic sol-gel formulation, and thus not requisite of also being a sol-gel formulation itself. So it is indefinite as to if “sol-gel bonding formulation” is a sol-gel formulation for bonding, or a formulation for bonding sol-gel (such as the subsequently applied sol-gel). For purposes of examination “a sol-gel bonding formulation” will be interpreted as at last inclusive of either such scenario (requiring it to either be a sol-gel formulation itself, or not).
The other dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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(s) 30, 34, 36-37, and 39-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran et al (US 2017/0314189; hereafter Curran) in view of Chang et al (WO 02/02862; hereafter Chang).
Claim 30: Curran teaches a process for coating a textile material (see, for example, abstract, [0011-0014)) said process comprising the following steps:
a) at least one cycle of impregnating the textile material with a sol-gel bonding formulation, said sol-gel bonding formulation comprising acid (such HCl) and being free of polycarboxylic acid (see, for example, abstract, [0006], [0043], [0046], “first stage” in examples, claim 1);
b) at least one cycle of drying the impregnated textile material obtained in step a (see, for example, [0043], examples, claim 1);
c) at least one cycle of impregnating the dried textile material obtained in step b) with a hydrophobic sol-gel formulation comprising acid, said hydrophobic sol-gel formulation being different from the sol-gel bonding formulation (See, for example, [0038-40], [0045-46] “second stage” in various examples),
d) at least one cycle of drying the impregnated textile material obtained in step c) (see, for example, [0043], examples).
Curran teaches wherein the sol-gel bonding formulation and hydrophobic sol-gel formulation comprises acid (see, for example, examples; wherein the former is prepared under acidic conditions, further to pH, further with HCl; and the latter preparation and mixing thereof is taught to proceed under acidic condition, further pH<1, and further HCl). Curran does not explicitly teach wherein the acid for each of these formulations is sulfamic acid. Chang teaches a method of textile treatment (See, for example, abstract, pg 6 lines 1-12). Chang further teaches wherein the treatment composition comprises at least organosilicon compounds to impart soil, and further water repellency (See, for example, abstract, pg 23 line 13-pg 24 line 30). Chang similarly uses acid to enhance mixing and maximized exhaustion of the treatment materials to the fibrous substrate, and notes that sulfamic acid is such an acid to predictably perform this purpose, while providing additional benefits of being inexpensive and a strong acid (see, for example, pg 6 lines 1-5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated sulfamic acid as the acid in each of the formulations since it is inexpensive, is strong, and would predictably achieve the intended purpose of enhance mixing and maximizing exhaustion of the treatment materials to the fibrous substrate.
Claim 34: Curran further teaches wherein each of the impregnation steps is independently performed by padding or spraying (See, for example, [0043], [0045]).
Claim 36: Curran further teaches wherein steps a) and / or c) comprises a squeezing step under pressure after the or each impregnation cycle (see, for example, [0043]. [0045]; wherein treatment is taught to be performed by padding which by design involves application of pressure, as the method proceeds for a finite duration, the claimed “impregnation” can be interpreted as occurring at least at the front end of the padding process and the squeezing under pressure step as occurring at least following the “impregnation” duration.)
Claim 37: Curran further teaches wherein the sol-gel bonding formulation comprises at least two silylated precursors (see, for example, ([0027-31], and examples).
Claim 39: Curran further teaches wherein the sol-gel bonding formulation is free of zirconium alkoxide and/or sodium hypophosphite (see, for example, examples).
Claim 40: As presently presented, the limitations of claim 40 only conditionally limit claim 30, as it only further limits one of two alternatively recited sol-gel formulations. Thus the reliance upon and teaching of Curran to the hydrophobic sol-gel formulation species would satisfy the present claim scope of claim 40 which only further limits the alternative omniphobic sol-gel formulation.
Claim 41: Curran further teaches wherein the hydrophobic sol-gel formulation comprises at least one silylated precursor chosen from, n-octadecyltriethoxysilane (ODTEOS) (triethoxyoctadecylsilane), n-decyltriethoxysilane (DTEOS) (triethoxydecylsilane) and dodecyltriethoxysilane (DDTEOS) (triethoxydodecylsilane), or a mixture of one or more of these precursors with tetraethoxysilane (TEOS) (tetraethyl orthosilicate) (See, for example, [0027-28] and examples).
Claim 42: Curran further teaches . wherein the sol-gel bonding, and/or hydrophobic formulation is an aqueous formulation and optionally further methanol (see, for example, [0035-40], examples).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran in view of Chang as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Curran et al (US 2014/0342098; hereafter Curran098).
Claim 31: Curran in view of Chang teach the method of claim 30 (above) including wherein Curran has further taught preparing samples for multiple coatings and testing of resulting properties of its treated textiles (See, for example, [0048-53, and examples), but they do not explicitly teach wherein at least one drying cycle is followed by a step d′) of maturing the material obtained in step d) by storage at room temperature under a humid atmosphere with a relative humidity of 50% for at least 16H to 18H. Curran098 teaches a method of coating a textile material with a waterproof coating (See, for example, abstract). Curran098 further teaches wherein humidity influences the curing behavior of the treatment formulations; as well as teach of storage of materials both before and after coating under conditions of 25+/- 10oC, and 50% relative humidity for assimilation (See, for example, [0043-44], [0049], [0063], [0065], [0067]). Curran098 additionally teaches wherein prior to testing , treated and untreated sample should be held at conditions of 25+/- 10oC, and 50% relative humidity for 18 hrs to allow for a consistent basis for comparison between the treated samples. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein at least one drying cycle is followed by a step d′) of maturing the material obtained in step d) by storage at room temperature under a humid atmosphere with a relative humidity of 50% for 18hrs since storage and drying under such conditions is known and predictable in the prior art to achieve the intended waterproof coated textile sample, and / or since such conditions would account for moisture content deviations by providing a consistent basis for comparison between treated samples and/ or untreated samples and/ or to counter deviations in the surrounding environment.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran in view of Chang as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Gresham (US 3,734,687; hereafter Gresham).
Claim 32: Curran in view of Chang teach the method of claim 30 (above) including wherein Curran had taught treatment with acidic repellant compositions followed by drying (See, for example, examples XVI-XX) , but it does not explicitly teach the process further comprises: e) washing the impregnated textile material obtained in step d) with a neutralizing aqueous solution. f) drying the material obtained in step e). Gresham teaches a method of coating a textile material (See, for example, abstract). Gresham further teaches wherein textile treatment with such acidic compositions can result in residual acidic material thereon, and wherein the treated and dried textiles should desirably be washed in a mildly alkaline aqueous solution to remove residual acidic material and then dried (See, for example, col 3 lines 43-62). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated e) washing the impregnated textile material obtained in step d) with a neutralizing aqueous solution and f) drying the material obtained in step e) since such steps are conventionally known in the textile treatment art to predictably remove residual acidic material.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran in view of Chang and Gresham as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Curran098.
Claim 33: refer to the rejection above of claim 32 over Curran in view of Chang and Gresham and the rejection above of claim 31 over Curran in view of Chang and Curran098.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curran in view of Chang as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Shah et al (US 5,527,271; hereafter Shah).
Claim 35: refer to the rejection of claim 30 over Curran in view of Chang (above) wherein Curran further teaches impregnating and drying and the said sol-gel bonding formulation is free of polycarboxylic acid (see, for example rejection of claim 30 above and wherein examples of Curran rely on HCL as the acid for the sol-gel bonding formulation). Curran does not explicitly teach at least two successive cycles, a) and b), of impregnating and drying the textile material. Shah teaches a method of coating / impregnation of a textile material (see, for example, abstract). Shah further demonstrates that it is well known in the art that repetition of impregnation and drying cycles can predictably be conducted to assist in control / increase the amount of material applied to the textile (See, for example, col 6 lines 62-68). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated at least two successive cycles, a) and b), of impregnating and drying the textile material as such repetition would predictably provide for greater control and increased amount of material applied to the textile.
Claim(s) 30, 34, 37, 39-40, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennige et al (US 2006/0172641; hereafter Hennige) in view of Chang.
Claim 30: Hennige teaches a process for coating a textile material (see, for example, abstract, [0003], [0045], examples) said process comprising the following steps:
a) at least one cycle of impregnating the textile material with a sol-gel bonding formulation, said sol-gel bonding formulation comprising acid (such HCl) and being free of polycarboxylic acid (see, for example, abstract, [0016-0020], [0043-0047], first sol gel treatment in examples, claims);
b) at least one cycle of drying the impregnated textile material obtained in step a (see, for example, [0047], examples, claim 1);
c) at least one cycle of impregnating the dried textile material obtained in step b) with a hydrophobic sol-gel formulation comprising acid, said hydrophobic sol-gel formulation being different from the sol-gel bonding formulation (See, for example, [0018], [0043-0047], second solgel treatment “b)” in various examples),
d) at least one cycle of drying the impregnated textile material obtained in step c) (see, for example, [0043-0047], examples).
Hennige teaches wherein each of the sol-gel bonding formulation and hydrophobic sol-gel formulation comprise acid, further HCl (see, for example, [0035-0037], examples). Hennige does not explicitly teach wherein the acid for these formulations is sulfamic acid. Chang teaches a method of textile treatment (See, for example, abstract, pg 6 lines 1-12). Chang further teaches wherein the treatment composition comprises at least organosilicon compounds to impart soil, and further water repellency (See, for example, abstract, pg 23 line 13-pg 24 line 30). Chang similarly uses acid to enhance mixing and maximized exhaustion of the treatment materials to the fibrous substrate, and notes that sulfamic acid is such an acid to predictably perform this purpose, while providing additional benefits of being inexpensive and a strong acid (see, for example, pg 6 lines 1-5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated sulfamic acid as the acid in each of the formulations since it is inexpensive, is strong, and would predictably achieve the intended purpose of enhance mixing and maximizing exhaustion of the treatment materials to the fibrous substrate.
Claim 34: Hennige further teaches wherein each of the impregnation steps is independently performed by spraying (See, for example, [0043], [0047]).
Claim 37: Hennige further teaches wherein the sol-gel bonding formulation comprises at least two silylated precursors (see, for example, [0035-0036] and examples, further such as TEOS + AMEO / GLYMO/ MEMO /VTEO etc)).
Claim 39: Hennige further teaches wherein the sol-gel bonding formulation is free of zirconium alkoxide and/or sodium hypophosphite (see, for example, examples).
Claim 40: As presently presented, the limitations of claim 40 only conditionally limit claim 30, as it only further limits one of two alternatively recited sol-gel formulations. Thus the reliance upon and teaching of Hennige to the hydrophobic sol-gel formulation species would satisfy the present claim scope of claim 40 which only further limits the alternative omniphobic sol-gel formulation.
Claim 42: Hennige further teaches wherein the sol-gel bonding, and/or hydrophobic formulation is an aqueous formulation and optionally further ethanol (see, for example, [0035-37]).
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennige in view of Chang as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Curran098.
Claim 31: Hennige in view of Chang teach the method of claim 30 (above) including wherein Hennige has further taught preparing samples for multiple coatings and testing of resulting properties of its treated textiles (See, for example, [0060-63], and examples), but they do not explicitly teach wherein at least one drying cycle is followed by a step d′) of maturing the material obtained in step d) by storage at room temperature under a humid atmosphere with a relative humidity of 50% for at least 16H to 18H. Curran098 teaches a method of coating a textile material with a waterproof coating (See, for example, abstract). Curran098 further teaches wherein humidity influences the curing behavior of the treatment formulations; as well as teach of storage of materials both before and after coating under conditions of 25+/- 10oC, and 50% relative humidity for assimilation (See, for example, [0043-44], [0049], [0063], [0065], [0067]). Curran098 additionally teaches wherein prior to testing, treated and untreated sample should be held at conditions of 25+/- 10oC, and 50% relative humidity for 18 hrs to allow for a consistent basis for comparison between the treated samples. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated wherein at least one drying cycle is followed by a step d′) of maturing the material obtained in step d) by storage at room temperature under a humid atmosphere with a relative humidity of 50% for 18hrs since storage and drying under such conditions is known and predictable in the prior art to achieve the intended waterproof coated textile sample, and / or since such conditions would account for moisture content deviations by providing a consistent basis for comparison between treated samples and/ or untreated samples and/ or to counter deviations in the surrounding environment.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennige in view of Chang as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Gresham.
Claim 32: Hennige in view of Chang teach the method of claim 30 (above) including wherein Hennige had taught treatment with acidic compositions followed by drying (See, for example, examples) , but it does not explicitly teach the process further comprises: e) washing the impregnated textile material obtained in step d) with a neutralizing aqueous solution. f) drying the material obtained in step e). Gresham teaches a method of coating a textile material (See, for example, abstract). Gresham further teaches wherein textile treatment with such acidic compositions can result in residual acidic material thereon, and wherein the treated and dried textiles should desirably be washed in a mildly alkaline aqueous solution to remove residual acidic material and then dried (See, for example, col 3 lines 43-62). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated e) washing the impregnated textile material obtained in step d) with a neutralizing aqueous solution and f) drying the material obtained in step e) since such steps are conventionally known in the textile treatment art to predictably remove residual acidic material.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennige in view of Chang and Gresham as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Curran098.
Claim 33: refer to the rejection above of claim 32 over Hennige in view of Chang and Gresham and the rejection above of claim 31 over Curran in view of Chang and Curran098.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennige in view of Chang as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Shah.
Claim 35: refer to the rejection of claim 30 over Curran in view of Chang (above) wherein Curran further teaches impregnating and drying and the said sol-gel bonding formulation is free of polycarboxylic acid (see, for example rejection of claim 30 above and wherein examples of Curran rely on HCL as the acid for the sol-gel bonding formulation). Curran does not explicitly teach at least two successive cycles, a) and b), of impregnating and drying the textile material. Shah teaches a method of coating / impregnation of a textile material (see, for example, abstract). Shah further demonstrates that it is well known in the art that repetition of impregnation and drying cycles can predictably be conducted to assist in control / increase the amount of material applied to the textile (See, for example, col 6 lines 62-68). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated at least two successive cycles, a) and b), of impregnating and drying the textile material as such repetition would predictably provide for greater control and increased amount of material applied to the textile.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 (and entered via 2/11/26) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s amendment of sulfamic acid into the sol-gel bonding formulation, refer to the rejections above; wherein it is noted that it would similarly have been obvious to have incorporated this acid into this formulation as the sol-gel formulation for the same reason since it is inexpensive, strong, and would predictably achieve the intended purpose of enhance mixing and maximizing exhaustion of the treatment materials to the fibrous substrate which would be of interest for both formulations.
The examiner is not convinced by Applicant’s argument that Curran ‘189 teaches away from retaining any acid, let alone sulfamic acid (present in portions of points “1)”, “2)”, and “3)” pgs 10-13)). First, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Curran is open to a bath pH of 6-8, at the low end of the range some amount of acid is present / allowed thus such a range does not teach away from retention of any acid. Additionally, 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). Chang has taught wherein the acid predictably achieves both enhanced mixing and maximizing exhaustion of the treatment materials to the fibrous substrate, thus its presence in the bath while in contact with the substrate would be encouraged.
At pg 11 “2)”, the examiner is not convinced by Applicant’s reasoning based upon the unsupported assertion that “In practice, such harsh acidity is conventionally achieved using strong inorganic acids (e.g. HCl, H2SO4)…”. First, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Second, Chang has already established sulfamic acid as a suitable alternative to such acids as HCl which are already taught as suitable for the method of Curran. The examiner notes that per MPEP 2131.02 II.: “A reasonable expectation of success exists from choosing the specific taught species from explicitly taught lists. Further when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated (rendered obvious) no matter how many other species are additionally named. Ex parte A 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). And, where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967). As Chang has explicitly taught sulfamic acid as a suitable acid the Examiner maintains that reliance upon said sulfamic acid is apt.
With respect to Applicant’ arguments (pg 12-13) directed to unexpected results (such as per the descriptions at [0105] and example 2 of the original disclosure), the examiner asserts that per MPEP 716.02(d); “the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support."” As presently presented claim 1 requires at least a textile, “a sol-gel bonding formulation” with the only limitation thereon is that it comprises sulfamic acid, and is free of polycarboxylic acid, and an onmiphobic or hydrophobic sol-gel formulation comprising sulfamic acid being different than the sol-gel bonding formulation, and undergoing preparation, impregnation and drying steps as claimed and unconfined by duration, temperature, pressure, force, atmosphere, speed, etc. Whereas the exemplary embodiments appear directed to specific solgel bonding formulation chemistries of TMOS (or TEOS) with GPTMOS (or GPTEOS), and water prepared at particular ratios, and conditions, the omniphobic . formulations were prepared with EtOH (or isopropanol) with 17FTEOS (or 13 FTEOS) prepared at particular ratios, and conditions, and the hydrophobic formulations were prepared only with EtOH with HDTEOS and prepared at particular ratios, and conditions,. The textiles only being cotton or kermal/ lenzing 50/50 of particular chemistries, structures, and densities. There is no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of essentially infinite combinations of chemistries of compositions / materials / conditions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the limited and specific combinations tested (MPEP 716.02(d)). In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
In response to applicant's argument that “nothing in Chang discloses or suggests that sulfamic acid would have the technical effect of improving the stability…”, 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).
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
After further search and consideration, additional rejections based upon new primary reference Hennige have been applied (refer to particular rejections above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712