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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 02/15/2026. Claims 1-15 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
This Office Action contains a New Grounds of Rejection. Since this new ground of
rejection did not result from an amendment to the claims, this Office Action is being made to
Non-Final to afford the Applicant the opportunity to respond to the new grounds of rejection.
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 door driving unit” in claims 1-2, 4 and 10-11.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: The door driving unit 220 shown in FIG. 2 includes, but is not limited to, first to fourth motor drivers 221, 222, 223, and 224 and first to fourth motors 225, 226, 227, and 228 that respectively automatically drive the opening and closing of the first to fourth doors 102 to 105, as described in page 14 of the published application.
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.
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 § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 10677510 B2, herein after referred to as Kim) in view of Watanabe et al (JP 2017040422 A, herein after referred to as Watanabe).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a refrigerator (refrigerator 1) comprising: a main body (cabinet 10); at least one door rotatably coupled to a front of the main body (as shown on figure 1); a door driving unit (door opening device 70) configured to automatically open and close the at least one door (door opening device 70 for automatically opening the main door 40, col 14 lines 7-8); an image obtaining sensor (sensing assembly 90, col 28 lines 4-8) configured to obtain image data of a user located in a vicinity of the refrigerator (a second sensing assembly provided at the front side of the refrigerator and configured to detect a presence of the user within a predetermined distance, col 28 lines 4-8).
Kim teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach at least one processor configured to detect a gaze point where a gaze of the user stays for a preset time period or longer by using the obtained image data of the user, determine a door corresponding to the detected gaze point among the at least one door, and control the door driving unit to open the determined door.
However, Watanabe teaches at least one processor (main control unit 100) configured to detect a gaze point (the eye detection unit 61 of the image processing unit 60 detects the presence of “eye” from the image information G obtained by the infrared camera 31, paragraph 0039 and 0047) where a gaze of the user stays for a preset time period or longer by using the obtained image data of the user (the user gazes at the imaging device 30 and then sends the gaze from the imaging device 30 to the area AR1/AR2 of the left/right door 7/8 to gaze at the area AR1/AR2, paragraphs 0047-0048), determine a door corresponding to the detected gaze point among the at least one door (a line of sight is sent to the area AR1/AR2 of the left/right door 7/8 to detect that the area AR1/AR2 has been watched, paragraphs 0047-0048), and control the door driving unit to open the determined door (main control unit 100 in FIG. 3 automatically opens the left/right door 7/8 intended by the user by operating the door opening device 51/52 after operating the notification unit 48 to notify the user, paragraphs 0047-0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerator in the teachings of Kim to include and at least one processor configured to detect a gaze point where a gaze of the user stays for a preset time period or longer by using the obtained image data of the user, determine a door corresponding to the detected gaze point among the at least one door, and control the door driving unit to open the determined door in view of the teachings of Watanabe in order to yield the predictable result of automatically opening the door according to the user's intention while improving the usability and safety.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one processor (control unit 100 of Watanabe) is further configured to divide a front of the refrigerator (figure 4 of Watanabe) into a plurality of virtual gaze areas (AR1-AR3, fig 4 of Watanabe) based on a number of doors of the at least one door or a structure of the refrigerator (figure 4 of Watanabe), and detect an area where a gaze point (towards imaging device 30, figure 7 of Watanabe) stays for a preset time period or longer (user gazes at the imaging device 30 and the user performs “the number of blinks of eyes” three times, paragraph 0055 of Watanabe) among the plurality of virtual gaze areas (AR1-AR3, figure 4 of Watanabe) as a gaze area of the front of the refrigerator including the gaze point (the user gazes at the line of sight on the imaging apparatus 30, paragraph 0055 of Watanabe).
Further, it is understood, claim 7 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach further comprising: an output unit (notification unit 48 of Watanabe) configured to display information to guide the user about virtual gaze areas (predetermined gaze movement of the eyes is detected, the notification unit 48 notifies the user accordingly, paragraph 0053 of Watanabe) of the plurality of virtual gaze areas (AR1-AR3, figure 4 of Watanabe) which the user is able to gaze at to open the at least one door (the main control unit 100 automatically opens the left door 7 intended by the user by operating the door opening device 51 after operating the notification unit 48 to notify the user, paragraph 0053 of Watanabe).
Further, it is understood, claim 8 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the output unit (notification unit 48 of Watanabe) includes a lighting device configured to emit light (notification unit 48 shown in FIG. 2 includes a sound generating device such as a buzzer and a light emitting device such as an LED lamp that emits light, paragraph 0027 of Watanabe).
Further, it is understood, claim 9 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one door (figure 4 of Watanabe) includes at least two doors (doors 7 and 8 of Watanabe), and the at least one processor (control unit 100 of Watanabe) is further configured to, when the detected gaze point is a boundary area (AR3, figure 4 of Watanabe) between doors of the at least two doors (between doors 7-8, figure 4 of Watanabe), control the door driving unit to open all doors of the at least two doors that are adjacent to the boundary area (a line of sight is sent to the center area AR3 to detect that the area AR3 has been watched. Accordingly, the main control unit 100 in FIG. 3 automatically operates the left and right doors 7 and 8 intended by the user by operating the door opening devices 51 and 52 after operating the notification unit 48 to notify the user, paragraph 0049 of Watanabe).
Further, it is understood, claim 10 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one door (figure 4 of Watanabe) includes at least two doors (doors 7 and 8 of Watanabe), and the at least one processor (control unit 100) is further configured to, after opening the determined door, when another gaze point (AR1 of Watanabe) is detected by using the image data of the user obtained by the image obtaining sensor (the eye detection unit 61 of the image processing unit 60 detects the presence of “eye” from the image information G obtained by the infrared camera 31, paragraph 0047 of Watanabe), determine another door of the at least two doors corresponding to the detected another gaze point among unopened doors of the at least two doors (the eye detection unit 61 of the image processing unit 60 detects the presence of “eye” from the image information G obtained by the infrared camera 31 shown in FIG. A line of sight is sent to the area AR2 of the right door 8 to detect that the area AR2 has been watched. Accordingly, the main control unit 100 in FIG. 3 automatically opens the right door 8 intended by the user, paragraph 0048 of Watanabe), and control the door driving unit to open the determined another door (by operating the opening device 52 after operating the notification unit 48 to notify the user, paragraph 0048 of Watanabe).
Further, it is understood, claim 11 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claims 12 and 15, it is noted that although the preamble of claims 12 and 15 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 2-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Watanabe, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Yu (CN 106152697 B, herein after referred to as Yu).
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising: a proximity sensor configured to detect an approach of the user toward the refrigerator, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, in a state in which the at least one door is closed, detect a first distance value between the refrigerator and the user by using an output value of the proximity sensor, and when the detected first distance value is greater than or equal to a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, control the door driving unit to open the determined door.
However, Yu teaches further comprising: a proximity sensor (infrared sensor, paragraph 0002) configured to detect an approach of the user toward the refrigerator (the infrared sensor; judging whether there is human body in front of the refrigerator door body, paragraph 0002), wherein the at least one processor (controller, paragraph 0003) is further configured to, in a state in which the at least one door is closed (closing door of the refrigerator, paragraph 0004), detect a first distance value between the refrigerator and the user by using an output value of the proximity sensor (according to the infrared distance measuring principle can calculate the distance between the human body and the infrared sensor, paragraph 0006), and when the detected first distance value is greater than or equal to a first threshold value (when judging the height of the human body is higher than the set height, paragraph 0003) and less than a second threshold value (if the distance between the human body and the infrared sensor is less than the set distance, paragraph 0003), control the door driving unit to open the determined door (step S14, opening the refrigerator door body, so that the refrigerator door can be opened after applying force to the refrigerator door body, paragraph 0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerator in the combined teachings to include further comprising: a proximity sensor configured to detect an approach of the user toward the refrigerator, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, in a state in which the at least one door is closed, detect a first distance value between the refrigerator and the user by using an output value of the proximity sensor, and when the detected first distance value is greater than or equal to a first threshold value and less than a second threshold value, control the door driving unit to open the determined door in view of the teachings of Yu in order to yield the predictable result of improving the use experience of the user.
Further, it is understood, claim 2 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one processor (controller, paragraph 0003 of Yu) is further configured to, when the detected first distance value (according to the infrared distance measuring principle can calculate the distance between the human body and the infrared sensor, paragraph 0006 of Yu) is less than the second threshold value (if the distance between the human body and the infrared sensor is less than the set distance, paragraph 0003 of Yu) in a state in which the at least one door is closed (if the height of the human body is lower than the set height, keeping closing the door lock, paragraph 0004 of Yu), activate an operation of the image obtaining sensor to obtain image data of the user located in a vicinity of the at least one door (further, after judging the refrigerator door body before the human body, the method further comprises: if the height of the human body is lower than the set height, keeping closing the door lock, paragraph 0004 of Yu).
Further, it is understood, claim 3 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 13, it is noted that although the preamble of claim 13 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated or rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 4-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Watanabe and Yu, as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Ji et al (KR 20170082009 A, herein after referred to as Ji).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, after opening the determined door, detect a second distance value between the refrigerator and the user by using an output value of the proximity sensor, and when the detected second distance value is greater than or equal to the second threshold value, control the door driving unit to close the opened door.
However, Ji teaches wherein the at least one processor (controller 80) is further configured to, after opening the determined door (changes the door to the open state, paragraph 0105), detect a second distance value between the refrigerator and the user by using an output value of the proximity sensor (controller 80 calculates the distance to the approaching user according to the sensing signal sensed by the upper sensing sensor 50, and selectively controls the opening / closing state of the door according to the calculated distance, paragraph 0107), and when the detected second distance value is greater than or equal to the second threshold value (when the distance to the user is equal to or greater than the predetermined distance, paragraph 0108), control the door driving unit to close the opened door (via opening and closing drive unit 70, figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerator in the combined teachings to include wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, after opening the determined door, detect a second distance value between the refrigerator and the user by using an output value of the proximity sensor, and when the detected second distance value is greater than or equal to the second threshold value, control the door driving unit to close the opened door in view of the teachings of Ji in order to yield the predictable result of improving the operation efficiency of the refrigerator.
Further, it is understood, claim 4 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one processor (control unit 80 of Ji) is further configured to, when a certain time period has elapsed since the opening of the determined door (at this time, if the impedance value of the lower sensing sensor 40 changes, the controller 80 checks whether the changed impedance value is maintained for a predetermined time. That is, if there is an accessing user, the controller 80 checks whether the user maintains the access state for a predetermined time or longer, paragraph 0096 of Ji), control the proximity sensor to detect a second distance value between the refrigerator and the user (controller 80 calculates the distance to the approaching user according to the sensing signal sensed by the upper sensing sensor 50, and selectively controls the opening / closing state of the door according to the calculated distance, paragraph 0107 of Ji).
Further, it is understood, claim 5 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that although the preamble of claim 14 is directed towards a method, the structure of the combined teachings discloses all the structure being provided in the method steps, thus the method is also anticipated or rendered obvious by the combined teachings. If a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently or obviously perform the claimed process. Thus, the method, as claimed, would necessarily result from the normal operation of the apparatus. See MPEP 2112.02.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Watanabe, Yu and Ji, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Yoon (US 20210270519 A1, hereinafter Yoon).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to deactivate operation of the image obtaining sensor when the detected second distance value is greater than or equal to the second threshold value after opening and closing the determined door.
However, Yoon teaches wherein the at least one processor (controller 100) is further configured to deactivate operation (paragraph 0121) of the image obtaining sensor (paragraph 0090) when the detected second distance value is greater than or equal to the second threshold value after opening and closing the determined door (interpreted as when the user is no longer sensed in the vicinity of the refrigerator 1, paragraph 0121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the refrigerator in the combined teachings to include wherein the at least one processor is further configured to deactivate operation of the image obtaining sensor when the detected second distance value is greater than or equal to the second threshold value after opening and closing the determined door in view of the teachings of Yu in order to yield the predictable result of removing operation power to the knock-on sensor when the user is no longer sensed in the vicinity of the refrigerator.
Further, it is understood, claim 6 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights