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 (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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is advised that the copy of the Chinese Office Action and Search Report for Chinese Application No. 202211454950.2, dated March 25, 2026; the copy of the Extended European Search Report for European Application No. 25224947.9, dated March 20, 2026; and the copy of the US Office Action for US Application No. 18/590,504, dated April 10, 2026 were not listed in the form SB08 of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 22 June, 2026. Their mention in the transmittal letter filed with that form did not comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement.
Because the documents were not listed in such a format, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 12-24, 26-29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US PGPub 2017/0209011, "Robinson") in view of Muir et al. (US 10499779, "Muir").
12. Robinson teaches a handheld cleaner (2) comprising:
a suction part (30) having a longitudinal axis (see Robinson fig. 2);
a main body (combination of 4 and 6) including:
a body (6) comprising a cyclone part (18) configured to separate dust from air suctioned through the suction part (Robinson [0035]) and a dust container (22) disposed at a lower side of the cyclone part (Robinson fig. 2) to store the dust separated by the cyclone part (Robinson [0036]);
and a body cover (32) configured to open and close a lower side of the body (see Robinson fig. 3 and [0063]-[0064]);
a handle (16) coupled to the main body (see Robinson fig. 2) and including a battery (15, see Robinson fig. 3 and [0033]);
a filter (40) disposed in the body and configured to filter the dust from air that passes through the filter (see Robinson fig. 3 [0038] and [0059]);
an annular frame (42) wherein the annular frame overlaps the handle in an extension direction of the longitudinal axis of the suction part (a line may be drawn parallel to an extension direction of 30 that passes through both 21 and a part of handle 16, see Robinson fig. 3).
Robinson further teaches that the annular frame (42) is configured to scrape debris from the space between an outer perimeter of the filter and an inner perimeter of the body into the bin (Robinson [0059]), and further teaches the presence of a pressable member (release catch 102) disposed outside the main body and configured to move the annular frame (pulling release catch 102 allows the movement of bin 22 and associated wiper frame 42 relative to the cyclone assembly including screen 40, see Robinson figs. 6a-6b and [0059]); and
a connection bar connecting the annular frame to the pressable member (first rail 60 is involved in the connection between 102 and the annular member, see Robinson figs. 3-4 and 6a-6b),
wherein at least a portion of the pressable member is located at a position offset from the longitudinal axis of the suction part (102 is located above the longitudinal axis, see Robinson fig. 3), and
wherein the pressable member is asymmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of the suction part (because 102 is located above the longitudinal axis, it is asymmetric to that axis, as there is no corresponding structure located with a comparable offset below the longitudinal axis, see Robinson fig. 3).
However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “an annular frame movable in a space between an outer perimeter of the filter and an inner perimeter of the body” requires that the frame be movable in the space relative to each of the filter and the body, which Robinson does not teach.
However, Muir teaches the concept of providing a vacuum cleaner (102) with a dust compression mechanism including an annular frame (414) movable in a space between an outer perimeter of a filter (312) and an inner perimeter of a body (210, see Muir 7:65-8:18);
a pressable member (handle 406) disposed outside a vacuum cleaner main body (see Muir figs. 3-4b) and configured to move the annular frame (see Muir figs. 4a-4b); and
a connection bar (416) connecting the annular frame to the pressable member (linkage 416 connects handle 406 to frame 414, see Muir fig. 4a and 7:53-60).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Muir regarding a dust compression mechanism into the cleaner of Robinson such that it included an annular frame movable in a space between an outer perimeter of the filter and an inner perimeter of the body; a pressable member disposed outside the main body and configured to move the annular frame; and a connection bar connecting the annular frame to the pressable member, as doing so would allow for regular cleaning of internal surfaces during use, thereby improving efficiency of the cleaner (Muir 8:37-55).
Furthermore, because of the need to allow for cleanings without disconnecting the dust cup (Muir 7:15-21), such a combination would result in the pressable member being located at a position offset from the longitudinal axis of the suction part, as aligning the pressable member with the longitudinal axis of the suction part would prevent the member from possessing a necessary range of movement, due to existing structures located along that axis (possible locations along the axis either have dust cup structure or internal handle structure, see Robinson fig. 3).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 12, wherein an entirety of the pressable member is positioned at a position offset from the longitudinal axis of the suction part (as described in the rejection of claim 12), wherein at least a portion of the connection bar is located at a position deviated from the longitudinal axis of the suction part (because the connection bar would be a physical object having volume and an axis is a linear construct with only length, even if the bar was aligned with the axis, a portion of its volume would necessarily be located at a position that was not on the axis).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 12,
wherein the handle includes a handle body having a handle axis, the handle axis extending along an axial line having a certain length within a length range of the handle body (handle 16 has a body and can have any number of arbitrary linear axes drawn therein), and
wherein the pressable member includes a portion located at a position deviated from the axial line and the connection bar includes a portion located at a position deviated from the longitudinal axis of the suction part (the pressable member and connection bars are physical objects having volume, the axes are linear constructs with only a length, so portions of each of the volumes are necessarily located at positions deviated from the axes).
17. Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 12, wherein the handle comprises:
a battery housing configured to receive the battery (lower portion 14 of handle 16 is configured to receive battery 15, see Robinson [0033]); and
a handle body (16) including:
a grip portion configured to be gripped by a user (16); and a connection portion (66) connected to the grip portion and the battery housing, the connection portion being disposed between the body of the main body and the grip portion (66 extends between main body 4 and battery housing 14, see Robinson fig. 4), and
wherein the pressable member includes a portion protruded from the connection portion in a horizontal direction (as noted above, the pressable member has a volume, which would include at least some portion protruding in a full range of horizontal and vertical directions from any arbitrary point, such as from connecting portion 66).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 17, wherein the connection bar is configured to move vertically (bar 416 moves vertically, see Muir figs. 4a-4b). One of ordinary skill would understand that the connection bar should be positioned in a place near the junction of dust cup and handle, so a user could actuate the pressable member with one hand while providing an opposing force on the handle with their other hand while keeping minimizing the torque resulting from horizontal separation of those forces. So one of ordinary skill combining the teachings of Muir and Robinson would locate the pressing assembly on one side of the connection portion, which is close to the handle but sufficiently distant that the pressing assembly has a full range of motion without interfering with existing structures. This would result in a configuration wherein the connection bar is configured to move along the connection portion in up and down directions, and wherein the connection bar includes a portion disposed between an outer perimeter of the body and the connection portion.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 17,
wherein at least a portion of the connection bar is located at a position deviated from the longitudinal axis of the suction part (because the connection bar would be a physical object having volume and an axis is a linear construct with only length, even if the bar was aligned with the axis, a portion of its volume would necessarily be located at a position that was not on the axis).
Robinson does not explicitly teach the presence of a guide body disposed between the body of the main body and the connection portion, the guide body being configured to guide a movement of the connection bar. However, Muir teaches that the elongate linkage (416) may be housed in an internal conduit (410) positioned adjacent the dust cup (see Muir 7:53-64 and figs. 4a-4b). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to, when combining the teachings of Muir with Robinson, to include some sort of mechanism that limited the motion of the connection bar to a vertical direction such as the conduit of Muir, such as a guide body disposed between the body of the main body and the connection portion, the guide body being configured to guide a movement of the connection bar, as doing so would prevent the connection bar from making unrestrained lateral movements and possible breaking off from the annular ring or pressable member.
22. Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 12, wherein the annular frame includes a coupling part connected to the connection bar (Muir teaches that annular frame 414 is coupled to elongate linkage 416, so there must necessarily be some sort of coupling part on the annular frame), and
wherein at least a portion of the coupling part is located at a position deviated from the longitudinal axis of the suction part (because the coupling part would be a physical object having volume and an axis is a linear construct with only length, even if the part was aligned with the axis, a portion of its volume would necessarily be located at a position that was not on the axis).
23. Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 22, wherein the handle comprises:
a battery housing configured to receive the battery (lower portion 14 of handle 16 is configured to receive battery 15, see Robinson [0033]); and
a handle body (16) including:
a grip portion configured to be gripped by a user (16); and a connection portion (66) connected to the grip portion and the battery housing, the connection portion being disposed between the body of the main body and the grip portion (66 extends between main body 4 and battery housing 14, see Robinson fig. 4), and
wherein the pressable member includes a portion protruded from the connection portion in a horizontal direction (as noted above, the pressable member has a volume, which would include at least some portion protruding in a full range of horizontal and vertical directions from any arbitrary point, such as from connecting portion 66).
24. Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 23, wherein the connection bar is configured to move vertically (bar 416 moves vertically, see Muir figs. 4a-4b). One of ordinary skill would understand that the connection bar should be positioned in a place near the junction of dust cup and handle, so a user could actuate the pressable member with one hand while providing an opposing force on the handle with their other hand while keeping minimizing the torque resulting from horizontal separation of those forces. So one of ordinary skill combining the teachings of Muir and Robinson would locate the pressing assembly on one side of the connection portion, which is close to the handle but sufficiently distant that the pressing assembly has a full range of motion without interfering with existing structures. This would result in a configuration wherein the connection bar is configured to move along the connection portion in up and down directions, and wherein the connection bar includes a portion disposed between an outer perimeter of the body and the connection portion.
26. Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 23. Robinson does not explicitly teach the presence of a guide body disposed between the body of the main body and the connection portion, the guide body being configured to guide a movement of the connection bar. However, Muir teaches that the elongate linkage (416) may be housed in an internal conduit (410) positioned adjacent the dust cup (see Muir 7:53-64 and figs. 4a-4b). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to, when combining the teachings of Muir with Robinson, to include some sort of mechanism that limited the motion of the connection bar to a vertical direction such as the conduit of Muir, such as a guide body disposed between the body of the main body and the connection portion, the guide body being configured to guide a movement of the connection bar, as doing so would prevent the connection bar from making unrestrained lateral movements and possible breaking off from the annular ring or pressable member.
27. Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 12, wherein the handle includes a handle body having a handle axis, the handle axis extending along an axial line having a certain length with a length range of the handle body (handle 16 has a body and can have any number of arbitrary linear axes drawn therein), and
wherein the annular frame includes a coupling part connected to the connection bar (Muir teaches that annular frame 414 is coupled to elongate linkage 416, so there must necessarily be some sort of coupling part on the annular frame), at least a portion of the coupling part being located at a position deviated from the axial line (because the coupling part would be a physical object having volume and an axis is a linear construct with only length, even if the part was aligned with the axis, a portion of its volume would necessarily be located at a position that was not on the axis. Furthermore, the orientation of the claimed axial line is almost entirely arbitrary, and may therefore be drawn such that it does not pass through any portion of the coupling part).
29. Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 12, wherein the longitudinal axis of the suction part is a central axis of the suction part, or wherein the longitudinal axis of the suction part intersects a center axis of the body (the longitudinal axis of the suction part may be a central axis of the suction part, see Robinson fig. 3).
Regarding claim 33, Robinson as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 12. The sole differences between claim 12 and independent claim 33 is the additional limitations of “wherein the first portion of the pressable member overlaps the handle in an extension direction of the longitudinal axis of the suction part” and “wherein the connection bar includes a portion that overlaps the handle in the extension direction of the longitudinal axis of the suction part”
Neither Robinson nor Muir explicitly teaches this configuration for the handle. However, it has been held that where the sole difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the particular placement of an element, the particular placement of that element is—absent some indication that changing the position of the element would have modified the operation of the device—an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Applicant's disclosure does not provide any indication that the configuration of pressable member, connection bar, and handle part relative to an extension direction of the longitudinal axis of the suction part. Consequently, positioning the structural elements in each of the recited locations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as a matter of design choice.
Claims 32 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 11229336, "Li") in view of Grey et al. (US PGPub 2020/0046188, "Grey").
32. Li teaches a handheld cleaner (T, Li fig. 1) comprising:
a suction part (T2) having a longitudinal axis (Li fig. 1);
a main body (T1) including:
a body (1) comprising a cyclone part (3) configured to separate dust from air suctioned through the suction part (Li 5:62-6:21) and a dust container (11) disposed at a lower side of the cyclone part (Li fig. 4) to store the dust separated by the cyclone part; and
a body cover (12) configured to open and close a lower side of the body (see Li figs. 4 and 8);
a handle (T3) coupled to the main body (Li fig. 1) and including a battery (5, Li fig. 22 and 31:27-43) and a handle body (4) with a grip portion (41) configured to be gripped by a user (see Li 26:27-40 and figs. 22-24); and
a filter (313) disposed in the body and configured to filter the dust from air that passes through the filter (Li fig. 4 and 16:29-41).
Li does not teach the presence of an annular frame movable in a space between an outer perimeter of the filter and an inner perimeter of the body; a pressable member disposed outside the main body and configured to move the annular frame; and a connection bar connecting the annular frame to the pressable member, wherein at least a portion of the pressable member is located at a position offset from the longitudinal axis of the suction part, wherein the pressable member is disposed to a left of the handle body, and wherein a portion of the pressable member does not overlap the grip portion in an extension direction of the longitudinal axis of the suction part.
However, Grey teaches a dirt collection chamber (10) for a vacuum cleaner (Grey figs. 2-8 and [0021]), comprising an annular frame (40) movable in a space between an outer perimeter of the filter (30) and an inner perimeter of the body (40 moves between filter 30 and wall 26, Grey [0059]-[0060]);
a pressable member (50) disposed outside the main body and configured to move the annular frame (50 is outside the main body and moves 40, Grey figs. 4-5 and [0067]); and
a connection bar (36) connecting the annular frame (40) to the pressable member (50 is connected to 40 via 36, see Grey [0059] and [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Grey regarding improvements for a vacuum cleaner into the cleaner of Li such that it included an annular frame movable in a space between an outer perimeter of the filter and an inner perimeter of the body; a pressable member disposed outside the main body and configured to move the annular frame; and a connection bar connecting the annular frame to the pressable member, as doing so would reduce the likelihood of spillage during an emptying process (Grey [0067]).
Furthermore, because the cleaner of Li has a centrally located handle, it would make sense for a person of ordinary skill to position the pressable member of the modified device to one side of the handle such that at least a portion of the pressable member of Li as modified was located at a position offset from the longitudinal axis of the suction part, specifically, the pressable member would be disposed to the left of the handle body (positioning the pressable member on the left side would be more obvious than the right, because a significant majority of people are right-handed and therefore more likely to use their right hand to hold the grip, positioning it on the left would allow a right-handed user holding the vacuum cleaner in their favored hand to actuate the pressable without having to reach over or change the hand holding the cleaner. If designed for a left-handed person, the pressable member could be positioned on the right side, but one of ordinary skill would be expected to design for right-handed users, as they greatly outnumber the left-handed, and therefore represent a greater potential market. Manufacturing separate cleaners would add significant tooling, packaging, and other logistical costs, so it is reasonable to conclude that one of ordinary skill would have positioned the pressable member to a left of the handle),
and wherein a portion of the pressable member does not overlap the grip portion in an extension direction of the longitudinal axis of the suction part (as noted, the modified device would have a pressable member located to one side of the handle so that it could still be moved, rather than inside the handle where it would complicate the handle linking mechanism taught by Li, see Li figs. 22-24).
36. Li as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 32, wherein the main body (T1) further comprises a suction motor (2) configured to generate a suction force (Li fig. 4 and 5:24-47), and wherein the handle (T3) is capable of being detached from the main body (Li 24:42-52) in a state in which the suction motor and the cyclone part are disposed in the main body (See Li figs. 22-24).
New claim 35 depends from claims 12 and 27.
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches a handheld cleaner (T, Li fig. 1) comprising:
a suction part (T2) having a longitudinal axis (Li fig. 1);
a main body (T1) including:
a body (1) comprising a cyclone part (3) configured to separate dust from air suctioned through the suction part (Li 5:62-6:21) and a dust container (11) disposed at a lower side of the cyclone part (Li fig. 4) to store the dust separated by the cyclone part; and
a body cover (12) configured to open and close a lower side of the body (see Li figs. 4 and 8);
a handle (T3) coupled to the main body (Li fig. 1) and including a battery (5, Li fig. 22 and 31:27-43); and
a filter (313) disposed in the body and configured to filter the dust from air that passes through the filter (Li fig. 4 and 16:29-41).
Li does not teach the presence of an annular frame movable in a space between an outer perimeter of the filter and an inner perimeter of the body; a pressable member disposed outside the main body and configured to move the annular frame; and a connection bar connecting the annular frame to the pressable member, wherein at least a portion of the pressable member is located at a position offset from the longitudinal axis of the suction part, wherein the pressable member is asymmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of the suction part, and wherein the annular frame overlaps the handle in an extension direction of the longitudinal axis of the suction part.
However, Grey teaches a dirt collection chamber (10) for a vacuum cleaner (Grey figs. 2-8 and [0021]), comprising an annular frame (40) movable in a space between an outer perimeter of the filter (30) and an inner perimeter of the body (40 moves between filter 30 and wall 26, Grey [0059]-[0060]);
a pressable member (50) disposed outside the main body and configured to move the annular frame (50 is outside the main body and moves 40, Grey figs. 4-5 and [0067]); and
a connection bar (36) connecting the annular frame (40) to the pressable member (50 is connected to 40 via 36, see Grey [0059] and [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings from Grey regarding improvements for a vacuum cleaner into the cleaner of Li such that it included an annular frame movable in a space between an outer perimeter of the filter and an inner perimeter of the body; a pressable member disposed outside the main body and configured to move the annular frame; and a connection bar connecting the annular frame to the pressable member, as doing so would reduce the likelihood of spillage during an emptying process (Grey [0067]).
Furthermore, because the cleaner of Li has a centrally located handle, the pressable member of the modified device would be positioned to one side of the handle such that at least a portion of the pressable member is located at a position offset from the longitudinal axis of the suction part and the pressable member was asymmetric with respect to the longitudinal axis of the suction part (positioning the member to one side of the handle avoids the problems of designing a way to move the member through a full range of motion without being obstructed by portions of the handle).
Finally, because Grey teaches the annular frame needs to be sized to surround a filter (because otherwise it would not be able to scrape the filter), and Li teaches that the handle (T3) and filter (313) may be positioned such that a horizontal line may be drawn intersecting both (see, e.g. Li figs. 22-24), the annular frame of Li as modified would surround the filter part and would be positionable such that it overlaps the handle in an extension direction of the longitudinal axis of the suction part.
Regarding claim 27, Li as modified further teaches that the handle includes a handle body (4) having a handle axis, the handle axis extending along an axial line having a certain length with a length range of the handle body (any line intersecting handle body 4 would meet the claimed handle axis as such a line would have a length between the points where it entered and exited the handle body and consequently would qualify as a line with “a certain length with a length range of the handle body”), and
wherein the annular frame includes a coupling part connected to the connection bar (Grey teaches frame 40 is connected to connection bar 36, and would include a coupling part at that connection, as would the version of the frame and connection bar implemented in Li as modified), at least a portion of the coupling part being located at a position deviated from the axial line (because the line may be drawn anywhere that intersects with the handle body, it could be drawn to avoid the coupling part).
35. Li as modified teaches the handheld cleaner of claim 27, wherein the main body (T1) further comprises a suction motor (2) configured to generate a suction force (Li fig. 4 and 5:24-47), and wherein the handle (T3) is capable of being detached from the main body (Li 24:42-52) in a state in which the suction motor and the cyclone part are disposed in the main body (See Li figs. 22-24).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 July, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that one of ordinary skill could not have integrated the teachings of Muir into the cleaner of Robinson, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights