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 Objections
Claims 33 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is advised that should claim 26 be found allowable, claim 33 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). For examination purposes, claim 33 will be treated as if it depended from claim 27.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a connecting member configured to releasably connect the seat back and the upper cross bar” in claim 19.
“wherein the seat back is connected to the cross bar at an upper end section of the seat back via a reclining member” in claim 27.
“a mating coupling element providing the releasable connection between the seat back and the cross bar” in claim 29.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“The connecting member 11 is attached to the upper end section 10 of the seat back 9a and is a strap connected to a hook member sliding in the cross bar 8” – page 9, lines 27-28 of the subject specification
“The connection member 11 has in this embodiment also the function of a reclining member 15. The reclining member 15 is in this illustration a strap member.” – page 9, lines 18-20 of the subject specification
“The reclining member and the upper end section of the seat back may comprise a respective mating coupling element, such as providing a snap fit connection, or a threaded connection, providing the releasable connection between the seat back and the cross bar." - page 4, line 35 - page 5, line 2 of the subject specification
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 26, 33 a 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 26 recites the limitation "the first seat" and "the first seat back" in claim 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the first seat", "the first seat back", "second seat" and "second seat back" in claim . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the first seat", "the first seat back", "second seat" and "second seat back" in claim . There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 17, 20, 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20090206566 A1 ("Enserink").
Claim 17: Enserink teaches A bike trailer comprising: a main frame comprising: a lower frame portion (14, 15), a rear frame portion (11), and two side frame portions (19) provided on opposite lateral sides of the lower frame portion (Fig. 7), the main frame defining an accommodation space for a passenger, wherein the bike trailer has an extension in a longitudinal direction, an extension in a transverse direction, and an extension in a height direction (Fig. 7); and a seat structure (16) forming a seating area for the passenger, the seat structure comprising
a seat back and a seat bottom (Fig. 7), wherein the seat back is configured to releasably connect to the bike trailer in a first position (Fig. 7) and in a second position (Fig. 6), the first position providing a first lateral seating area for the passenger (Fig. 7), and the second position providing a centralized seating area for the passenger, as seen in the transverse direction (Fig. 6).
Claim 20: Enserink teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Enserink further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the seat back and the seat bottom are one integrated unit (16; Fig. 7).
Claim 23: Enserink teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Enserink further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the lower frame portion (14, 15) comprises first (14) and second (15) lower frame side sections, wherein a lower cross bar (17, 18) extends between the first and the second lower frame side sections, and the seat bottom (bottom of 16) is supported by the lower cross bar (Fig. 7).
Claim 25: Enserink teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Enserink further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the bike trailer comprises: a second seat structure forming a seating area for a second passenger (Fig. 7), the second seat structure comprising: a seat back, and a seat bottom, wherein the seat back of the second seat structure is configured to releasably connect to the bike trailer in a third position providing a second lateral seating area for the second passenger (Fig. 7).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 18, 19, 21, 22, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090206566 A1 ("Enserink") in view of US 20090026817 A1 ("Britton").
Claim 18: Enserink the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. But does not teach the bike trailer, wherein the rear frame portion comprises an upper cross bar having a central portion and first and second lateral portions provided on opposite sides of the central portion, as seen in the transverse direction, wherein the seat back is configured to releasably connect to the upper cross bar at an upper end section of the seat back, and wherein the seat back is configured to releasably connect to the upper cross bar in a first position and in a second position, the first position being arranged on the first lateral portion of the cross bar, thus forming the first lateral seating area for the passenger, and the second position being arranged on the central portion of the upper cross bar, thus forming the centralized seating area for the passenger.
However, Britton in a similar field of art teaches the bike trailer, wherein the rear frame portion comprises an upper cross bar (5) having a central portion (portion between 22 and 23) and first (22) and second (23) lateral portions provided on opposite sides of the central portion, as seen in the transverse direction (Fig. 1), the bike trailer, wherein the rear frame portion comprises an upper cross bar (5) having a central portion (portion between 22 and 23) and first (22) and second (23) lateral portions provided on opposite sides of the central portion, as seen in the transverse direction (Fig. 1), and wherein the seat back is configured to releasably connect to the upper cross bar in a first position and in a second position, the first position being arranged on the first lateral portion of the cross bar, thus forming the first lateral seating area for the passenger, and the second position being arranged on the central portion of the upper cross bar, thus forming the centralized seating area for the passenger (Britton alone doesn’t show this. But upon modifying Enserink to include the ‘upper cross bar at an upper end section of the seat back’ of Britton, the seat back of Enserink would be connected to the upper cross bar at different positions depending on the seat arrangement). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Enserink with the features of Britton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Britton teaches “The body receptacle is held by two belts 22, 23 running along its sides, the ends of which are looped around the cross strut 4 and the cross tube 5, respectively, and fastened with buckles 24, 25, 26, 27” (para. 27, lines 3-6).
Claim 19: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Britton further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the seat back or the upper cross bar comprises a connecting member (24, 25) configured to releasably connect the seat back and the upper cross bar (para. 27, lines 1-6), wherein the connecting member is transferable by sliding in or on the upper cross bar between the first position and the second position (belts 22 and 23; Fig. 1; para. 27, lines 1-6).
Claim 21: Enserink teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Enserink further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the seat bottom (bottom of 16) extends, as seen in the transverse direction, over the first lateral seating area and over the centralized seating area for the passenger (Figs. 6 and 7), but does not teach the seat back is releasably connected to the seat bottom in the first position and in the second position.
However, Britton in a similar field of art teaches the seat back is releasably connected to the seat bottom in the first position and in the second position (connection of 22 and 23 to buckles 26 and 27; Fig. 1; para. 27, lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Enserink with the features of Britton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Britton teaches “The body receptacle is held by two belts 22, 23 running along its sides, the ends of which are looped around the cross strut 4 and the cross tube 5, respectively, and fastened with buckles 24, 25, 26, 27” (para. 27, lines 3-6).
Claim 22: Enserink teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. But does not teach the bike trailer, wherein the bike trailer comprises a first and a second locking member, wherein the first and second positions are first and second locked positions preventing movement of the seat structure in the transverse direction upon locking of the first and the second locking member.
However, Britton in a similar field of art teaches the bike trailer, wherein the bike trailer comprises a first (33) and a second (34) locking member, wherein the first and second positions are first and second locked positions preventing movement of the seat structure in the transverse direction upon locking of the first and the second locking member (Fig. 1; para. 28, lines 3-4). therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Enserink with the features of Britton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Britton teaches “The body receptacle is held by two belts 22, 23 running along its sides, the ends of which are looped around the cross strut 4 and the cross tube 5, respectively, and fastened with buckles 24, 25, 26, 27” (para. 27, lines 3-6).
Claim 26: Enserink teaches the limitations of claim 25 as noted above. But does not teach the bike trailer, wherein the bike trailer comprises: a second seat structure forming a seating area for a second passenger, the second seat structure comprising: a seat back, and a seat bottom, wherein the seat back of the second seat structure is configured to releasably connect to the bike trailer in a third position providing a second lateral seating area for the second passenger.
However, Britton in a similar field of art teaches the bike trailer, wherein the seat back of the first seat is configured to releasable connect to an upper cross bar of the rear frame at an upper end section of the first seat back (para. 27, lines 1-6), and wherein the seat back of the second seat is configured to releasably connect to the upper cross bar at an upper end section of the second seat back (belts 22 and 23; Fig. 1; para. 27, lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Enserink with the features of Britton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Britton teaches “The body receptacle is held by two belts 22, 23 running along its sides, the ends of which are looped around the cross strut 4 and the cross tube 5, respectively, and fastened with buckles 24, 25, 26, 27” (para. 27, lines 3-6).
Claims 27-31, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090206566 A1 ("Enserink") in view of US 20090026817 A1 ("Britton") and further in view of US 20190256121 A1 ("Rolicki").
Claim 27: Enserink teaches a bike trailer comprising: a main frame comprising: a lower frame portion (14, 15), a rear frame portion (11), and two side frame portions (19) provided on opposite lateral sides of the lower frame portion (Fig. 7), wherein the main frame defines an accommodation space for a passenger, wherein the bike trailer has an extension in a longitudinal direction, an extension in a transverse direction, and an extension in a height direction (Fig. 7), and a seat structure (16) forming a seating area for a passenger, the seat structure comprising a seat back and a seat bottom (Fig. 7). But does not teach wherein the rear frame portion comprises an upper cross bar extending between the two side frame portions; wherein the seat back is configured to move between an upright position and a reclined position, wherein the seat back is connected to the cross bar at an upper end section of the seat back via a reclining member, wherein the reclining member is transferable between a first configuration in which the seat back is in the upright position, and a second configuration in which the seat back is in the reclined position, and wherein the upper end section of the seat back is a greater distance from the cross bar in the second configuration than in the first configuration.
However, Britton in a similar field of art teaches wherein the rear frame portion comprises an upper cross bar (5) extending between the two side frame portions (22, 23) (Fig. 1); wherein the seat back is connected to the cross bar at an upper end section of the seat back via a reclining member (para. 27, lines 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Enserink with the features of Britton. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Britton teaches “The body receptacle is held by two belts 22, 23 running along its sides, the ends of which are looped around the cross strut 4 and the cross tube 5, respectively, and fastened with buckles 24, 25, 26, 27” (para. 27, lines 3-6).
However, Rolicki in a similar field of art teaches wherein the seat back is configured to move between an upright position and a reclined position (Fig. 6; para. 74, lines 8-13), and wherein the upper end section of the seat back is a greater distance from the cross bar in the second configuration (reclined position) than in the first configuration (upright position) (para. 74, lines 8-13), wherein the reclining member is transferable between a first configuration in which the seat back is in the upright position, and a second configuration in which the seat back is in the reclined position (Rolicki alone doesn’t show this. But upon modifying Enserink to include the ‘upper cross bar at an upper end section of the seat back’ of Britton, the seat back of Enserink would be connected to the upper cross bar at different positions depending on the reclining seat arrangements of Rolicki). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Enserink with the features of Rolicki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Rolicki teaches the seats “can be further adjusted with respect to a recline angle of a back of the seat relative to a base of the seat to provide for comfort of the occupant(s) during use of the stroller. Further, the seatback recline angle of the examples seat disclosed herein can be adjusted when two or more seats are coupled to the stroller frame (e.g., as shown in FIG. 2) without interference from the other seat and/or the stroller handle.” (para. 162, lines 7-14)
Claim 28: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 27 as noted above. Britton further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the reclining member is an adjustable strap member (22, 23; para. 27, lines 1-6), a rigid adjustable connector, or a rod.
Claim 29: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 27 as noted above. Britton further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the reclining member and the upper end section of the seat back comprise a mating coupling element (24, 25) providing the releasable connection between the seat back and the cross bar (Fig. 1; para. 27, lines 1-6).
Claim 30: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 27 as noted above. Rolicki further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the seat back is hingedly connected to the seat bottom, and wherein the seat structure is provided with a spring-biased member (seat mount; para. 82, lines 1-5) which biases the seat back towards the reclined position (para. 74, lines 8-13).
Claim 31: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 27 as noted above. Enserink further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the lower frame portion (14, 15) comprises first (14) and second (15) lower frame side sections, wherein a lower cross bar (17, 18) extends between the first and the second lower frame side sections, and wherein the seat bottom (bottom of 16) is supported by the lower cross bar (Fig. 7).
Claim 33: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 27 as noted above. Britton further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the seat back of the first seat or the upper cross bar comprises a connecting member configured to releasably connect the first seat back and the upper cross bar (para. 27, lines 1-6), and wherein the seat back of the second seat or the upper cross bar comprises a connecting member configured to releasably connect the second seat back and the upper cross bar (belts 22 and 23; Fig. 1; para. 27, lines 1-6).
Claim 34: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 27 as noted above. Enserink further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the seat back of the first seat and the seat bottom of the first seat are one integrated unit (16; Fig. 7), and wherein the seat back of the second seat and the seat bottom of the second seat are one integrated unit (16; Fig. 7).
Claims 24 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20090206566 A1 ("Enserink") in view of US 20090026817 A1 ("Britton") and further in view of US 20190256121 A1 ("Rolicki") and further in view of US 20150135443 A1 ("Cortez").
Claim 24: Enserink teaches the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Enserink further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the seat structure has a structure (20) covering a back side of the seat back and the seat bottom, respectively (para. 6, lines 12-17; Fig. 7). But does not teach the structure is a rigid base structure position.
However, Cortez in a similar field of art teaches structure is a rigid base structure (para. 16, lines 24-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Enserink with the features of Cortez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Cortez teaches “the rigid planar material configured to rigidly support the flexible support material to support the infant or the small child, an extension extending from the flexible support material and forming a securing envelope, the securing envelope configured to selectably attach to a child safety seat or a child stroller, and securing straps attached to the flexible support material and configured to attach the flexible support material to a child safety seat or a child stroller” (para. 4, lines 6-13).
Claim 32: The prior art teaches the limitations of claim 27 as noted above. Enserink further teaches the bike trailer, wherein the seat structure has a structure (20) covering a back side of the seat back and the seat bottom respectively (para. 6, lines 12-17; Fig. 7). But does not teach the structure is a rigid base structure position.
However, Cortez in a similar field of art teaches structure is a rigid base structure (para. 16, lines 24-41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Enserink with the features of Cortez. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as Cortez teaches “the rigid planar material configured to rigidly support the flexible support material to support the infant or the small child, an extension extending from the flexible support material and forming a securing envelope, the securing envelope configured to selectably attach to a child safety seat or a child stroller, and securing straps attached to the flexible support material and configured to attach the flexible support material to a child safety seat or a child stroller” (para. 4, lines 6-13).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AL-BIRR RAHMAN CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-4661. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am - 6:00pm.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at (571) 270-7778. 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.
/A.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3618
/JASON D SHANSKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614