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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tuxen et al (US 6,230,868 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tuxen discloses
a metering device, i.e., electronic parking system (10), as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, for attachment to an existing structure, noting the bottom of the parking meter (10) near lower housing section (16) sets on a structure such as the ground, sidewalk or pavement, the metering device (10) comprising:
a metering device assembly comprising:
metering components, i.e., parking meter mechanism (23) as illustrated in figure 2;
a rear cover, i.e., rear door (32);
a front cover, i.e., upper housing section (14) including the front section such as flat portion (28) as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, separable from the rear cover (32); and a bottom plate, i.e., the bottom of lower housing (16), for mounting the metering device to the existing structure at a metering location; and a locking mechanism, i.e., high security lock (47) as illustrated in figure 2, adapted to secure the front cover (14) and rear cover (32) together and secure the bottom plate to the existing structure, noting that the bottom plate is secured to the lower housing (16), in order to secure the metering device (10) at the metering location, the locking mechanism (47) operated by rotation of a key inserted into the locking mechanism (47), as is typical for a common lock.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuxen et al (US 6,230,868 B1) in view of MacKay et al (US 2012/0222935 A1).
Regarding Claims 2-3, 16 and 17, Tuxen teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 2, Tuxen does not expressly teach wherein the rear cover is attached to the bottom plate to form a rear assembly.
Regarding Claim 2, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but MacKay teaches wherein the rear cover, i.e., front housing (134), as illustrated in figure 2, is attached to the bottom plate, i.e., the bottom of the internal structure (132) of the meter mechanism (130), to form a rear assembly, noting that it is considered a matter of design choice as to whether the front or rear cover is attached to the bottom plate.
Note that it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Note also that MacKay teaches rear cover (210) attached to the bottom housing (102) which can also be considered a teaching of integration of the rear cover and the lower portion of the superstructure.
Note also that it has been held forming in one piece an article which has been formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Additionally note that it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding Claim 2, before the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the rear cover is attached to the bottom plate to form a rear assembly, as taught by MacKay, in Tuxen’s parking meter for the purpose of creating a compact structure that enables easy access to the internal parking meter mechanism for maintenance as well as for the most efficient and cost effective assembly for manufacturability. Note further that Applicant does not appear to provide criticality for this feature in either the specification or the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 3, Tuxen does not expressly teach wherein the metering components are coupled to the front cover to form a front assembly.
Regarding Claim 3, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but MacKay teaches wherein the metering components (130, 230) as illustrated in figures 1, 2 and 9, are coupled to the front cover (134, 234) to form a front assembly.
Regarding Claim 16, Tuxen does not expressly teach wherein at least one of the rear cover and the bottom plate is formed from one or more of:
an extrusion; and folded stainless steel.
Note that it has been held to be within the skill of an ordinarily skilled artisan to have selected a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 16, before the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided teach wherein at least one of the rear cover and the bottom plate is formed from one or more of:
an extrusion; and folded stainless steel as a matter of design choice for the purpose of its suitability for its use to resist exterior forces as a result of vandalism, or its manufacturability and cost, for example
Regarding Claim 17, see the rejection of Claim 16, above.
Claim(s) 4-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuxen et al (US 6,230,868 B1) in view of MacKay et al (US 2012/0222935 A1) and further in view of Donnelly et al (US 2011/0106329 A1).
Regarding Claims 4-13 and 15, Tuxen teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 4, Tuxen does not expressly teach wherein the front assembly is slidably engageable with the rear assembly.
Regarding Claim 4, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but Donnelly teaches wherein the front assembly, i.e., plate (5.4), as illustrated in figure 4 and as mentioned at paragraphs 43-45, with electrical components (5.5) as illustrated in figure 4, is slidably engageable with the rear assembly, i.e., housing unit (5.1), noting the rails/front shield slider (5.7.2) and rear shield sliders (5.7.3) enable sliding action to occur.
Regarding Claim 4, before the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the front assembly is slidably engageable with the rear assembly, as taught by Donnelly, in Tuxen’s parking meter for the purpose of creating a compact structure that enables easy access to the internal parking meter mechanism for maintenance as well as for the most efficient and cost effective assembly for manufacturability.
Regarding Claim 5, Tuxen does not expressly teach, wherein the rear assembly comprises one or more rails on which the front assembly is slidably engageable.
Regarding Claim 5, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but Donnelly teaches wherein the rear assembly comprises one or more rails (5.72, 5.73) on which the front assembly (5.4, 5.5, 5.81, 5.82) as illustrated in figure 4, is slidably engageable.
Regarding Claim 6, Tuxen does not expressly teach, wherein the one or more rails are located on edges of the rear cover.
Regarding Claim 6, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but Donnelly teaches wherein the one or more rails (5.72, 5.73) are located on edges of the rear cover, i.e., the edges of the spine plate (5.4).
Regarding Claim 6, before the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein the one or more rails are located on edges of the rear cover, as taught by Donnelly, in Tuxen’s parking meter for the purpose of creating two housing components from a single cylindrical housing component so as to enable a compact structure that creates easy access to the internal parking meter mechanism for maintenance as well as for the most efficient and cost effective assembly for manufacturability. Note that providing sliding structure between the two portions through rails is considered common assembly elements for combining two formerly separate structures into a single one.
Regarding Claim 7, Tuxen does not expressly teach, wherein one or more rail guides of the front assembly are slidably engageable with the rear assembly.
Regarding Claim 7, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but Donnelly teaches wherein one or more rail guides, i.e., construed as the edges of the two mating parts on which the rails (5.72, 5.73) mate, of the front assembly are slidably engageable with the rear assembly, noting that rails and rail guides are common elements for joining two formerly separate structures into a single one.
Regarding Claim 8, Tuxen teaches, wherein the locking mechanism (46, 47) prevents the front assembly from sliding relative to the rear assembly, as taught by Donnelly, when the locking mechanism is engaged, noting that unless the front and back are unlocked, no internal structures can be accessed.
Regarding Claim 9, Tuxen teaches wherein the front assembly and the rear assembly when secured together provide a protective housing having a generally cylindrical shape, as illustrated in figures 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 10, Tuxen teaches wherein the front cover comprises a flat recessed portion (28) providing a location for user interaction components, i.e., display (18) and buttons (20), as illustrated in figure 1, for example.
Regarding Claim 11, Tuxen teaches wherein the user interaction components comprise one or more payment means comprising a contactless payment reader, i.e., card acceptor (30) for receiving payment information from a contactless payment device.
Regarding Claim 11, note that MacKay also teaches wherein the user interaction components comprise one or more payment means comprising a contactless payment reader, as mentioned at paragraph 35, for receiving payment information from a contactless payment device.
Regarding Claim 12, Tuxen does not expressly teach wherein an antenna for the contactless payment reader is located within at least one of:
the flat recessed portion of the front cover; and a portion of the front cover transitioning from the flat recessed portion of the front cover to the generally cylindrical portion of the front cover.
Regarding Claim 12, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but MacKay teaches wherein an antenna for the contactless payment reader is located within at least one of:
the flat recessed portion of the front cover; and a portion of the front cover transitioning from the flat recessed portion of the front cover to the generally cylindrical portion of the front cover, as mentioned at paragraph 41, which states that the antenna is located behind the display (142) and close to the exterior of the parking meter (100) “such that the contactless payment reader is able to read contactless payment devices placed over the display (142).
Regarding Claim 12, before the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided wherein an antenna for the contactless payment reader is located within at least one of:
the flat recessed portion of the front cover; and a portion of the front cover transitioning from the flat recessed portion of the front cover to the generally cylindrical portion of the front cover, as taught by MacKay, in Tuxen’s parking meter for the purpose of locating the antenna behind the display (18) for ease of access to contactless payment means, as is common in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, Tuxen does not expressly teach wherein the front cover comprises a cylindrical recess at a top of the metering device assembly housing a solar panel.
Regarding Claim 13, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but MacKay teaches wherein the rear cover (110) comprises a square recess (114) at a top of the metering device assembly housing a solar panel (116) as illustrated in figure 2, for example.
Regarding Claim 13, before the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have wherein the front cover comprises a cylindrical recess at a top of the metering device assembly housing a solar panel, as taught by MacKay, in Tuxen’s parking meter for the purpose of locating the solar panel as a means for power generation as is common in the art. Note that it is considered a matter of design choice as to whether or not the shape is cylindrical or square as Applicant has not provided any criticality to this feature in either the specification or the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 15, Tuxen does not expressly teach wherein the front assembly comprises a battery compartment for receiving at least one battery, wherein the battery compartment is pivotally attached to the front assembly to allow the battery compartment to pivot outwards to provide access to the batteries.
Regarding Claim 15, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but MacKay teaches wherein the front assembly comprises a battery compartment for receiving at least one battery, i.e., power source (146), as mentioned at paragraph 38.
Regarding Claim 15, official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to have provided wherein the battery compartment is pivotally attached to the front assembly to allow the battery compartment to pivot outwards to provide access to the batteries, as is common in the art, for the purpose of enabling better access for maintenance.
Claim(s) 14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tuxen et al (US 6,230,868 B1) in view of MacKay et al (US 2012/0222935 A1), further in view of Donnelly et al (US 2011/0106329 A1) and further in view of Dixon (US 2008/0055177 A1).
Regarding Claims 14 and 18-20, Tuxen teaches the system as described above.
Regarding Claim 14, Tuxen does not expressly teach wherein an arcuate portion of the cylindrical recess is further recessed to form an antenna recess housing a cellular antenna.
Regarding Claim 14, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but Dixon teaches wherein an arcuate portion of the cylindrical recess is further recessed to form an antenna recess housing a cellular antenna, noting the combined solar panel and antenna as mentioned at abstract and paragraphs 11, 13 and 15 and as illustrated in figure 9, for example.
Regarding Claim 14, before the effective date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have wherein an arcuate portion of the cylindrical recess is further recessed to form an antenna recess housing a cellular antenna, as taught by Dixon, in Tuxen’s parking meter for the purpose of locating the solar panel and the antenna in the same module so as to save space as is common in the art. Note that it is considered a matter of design choice as to whether or not the shape is arcuate/cylindrical or square as Applicant has not provided any criticality to this feature in either the specification or the disclosure.
Regarding Claim 18, see the rejection of Claim 16, above.
Regarding Claim 19, Tuxen does not expressly teach wherein the rear cover is formed out of stainless steel, and the bottom plate is secured to the rear cover by using bolts through a series of mounting holes that align to the stainless steel rear cover and which allow both the rear cover and bottom plate to be securely attached to the existing structure.
Regarding Claim 19, Tuxen does not expressly teach, but MacKay teaches wherein the rear cover is formed out of stainless steel, and the bottom plate is secured to the rear cover by using bolts through a series of mounting holes that align to the stainless steel rear cover and which allow both the rear cover and bottom plate to be securely attached to the existing structure, as mentioned at paragraph 43, mentioning bolted or screwed connections. Regarding the stainless steel material, see the rejection of Claim 16, above.
Regarding Claim 20, Tuxen does not expressly teach further comprising a solar panel assembly that is removably engageable with the metering device assembly, wherein the solar panel assembly comprises a rotatably adjustable solar panel that can be vertically angled or sloped to two or more different positions.
Regarding Claim 20, official notice is taken that it would have been obvious to have included further comprising a solar panel assembly that is removably engageable with the metering device assembly, wherein the solar panel assembly comprises a rotatably adjustable solar panel that can be vertically angled or sloped to two or more different positions, for the purpose of enabling adjustment for different climatic conditions such as locations where the angle of the sun is different.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Tuxen does not disclose “a front cover separable from the rear cover”, as recited in Independent Claim 1, because “[p]roviding a hinged door secured to the cylindrical housing as taught by Tuxen does not disclose or suggest the rear cover that is separable from the front cover as claimed” as mentioned at Applicant’s Remarks, a.k.a., “Remarks”, received 1/7/26, p. 6-p.8.
Applicant’s Independent Claim 1 recites as follows.
1. (Previously Presented) A metering device for attachment to an existing structure, the metering device comprising:
a metering device assembly comprising:
metering components;
a rear cover;
a front cover separable from the rear cover; and
a bottom plate for mounting the metering device to the existing structure at a metering location; and
a locking mechanism adapted to secure the front cover and rear cover together and secure the bottom plate to the existing structure in order to secure the metering device at the metering location, the locking mechanism operated by rotation of a key inserted into the locking mechanism.
Emphasis provided.
However, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, Tuxen’s rear cover/door (32) and front cover (40) are “separable” because of at least two reasons. First, the term “separable” can also include “partially separable” as there is no specification of the degree of separability defined either in the specification or the disclosure. Second, broadly and reasonably interpreted, the term separable is a function which can be performed in any way imaginable, such as by cutting or by unscrewing or by removing the hinge or by cutting the hinge by blow torch, for example. Although Applicant’s two front and rear covers are removable by unlocking or removing a screw/fastener and then sliding, as illustrated in figure 3a, for example, Applicant’s claim language does not reflect this specificity.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the features/elements/structure enabling the two covers to be released and then to slide with respect to one another) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, Tuxen also has a bottom structure, whether or not it is integral or a part that is attached by fasteners, which can also be detached in similar fashion to Tuxen’s front and rear covers/doors, in any way imaginable, such as by cutting or by unscrewing or by removing the hinge or by cutting the hinge by blow torch, for example.
In response to Applicant's arguments, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., dated 1998, p. 1067, defines the term “separable” as meaning “capable of being separated or dissociated” or “causing separation”.
Thus, the claim language “a front cover separable from the rear cover” can be interpreted to mean merely that the front cover is “capable of being separated” from the rear cover. As has been discussed and shown above, since under a broadest reasonable interpretation, Tuxen’s front cover is still “capable of being separated” from the rear cover because the term “separable” is capable of being removed by breaking the front cover off of the superstructure at the hinge. Similarly, the rear cover may also be capable of being broken off of its hinge, thus also meeting the limitation.
In fact, it can also be argued that either the front or rear covers/doors are capable of being separated from each other because they are inherently capable of being broken off from the main superstructure and thus from each other at the hinge upon the application of sufficient force. See also MPEP 2114 (I) which states as follows.
2114 Apparatus and Article Claims — Functional Language [R-07.2015]
For a discussion of case law which provides guidance in interpreting the functional portion of means-plus-function limitations see MPEP § 2181 - § 2186.
I. INHERENCY AND FUNCTIONAL LIMITATIONS IN APPARATUS CLAIMS
Features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2173.05(g). If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971) ("where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on").
Emphasis provided.
Applicant further asserts that Tuxen does not disclose the claimed locking mechanism because it does not recite “a locking mechanism that is adapted to (i) secure the front cover and rear cover together and (ii) secure the bottom plate to the existing structure”. See Remarks at p. 8, lines 8-12.
Applicant further asserts that there is no bottom plate. See Remarks, p. 8, 4th and 5th lines from the bottom. However, it is noted that it is construed as being inherent that there is a bottom plate so as to secure the entire housing (12) to the ground. See also col. 3, lines 20-36, which mentions as follows.
The parking meter mechanism 23 is supported beneath the PCB 52. As already noted, this mechanism may be as described in the aforementioned '369 patent and will include digital display 24 and infrared communication 26. The mechanism can be readily installed and removed as desired since it is a self-contained unit with an operating system as described in the aforementioned '083 patent. All peripheral systems described are adapted to be controlled by this mechanism and only a single mechanism is required for the control of all of the parking spaces involved. The value of the system is enhanced by the fact that many municipalities already have mechanisms of this type purchased for use with the conventional mounting stanchions. It is, therefore, not necessary to purchase new mechanisms with the purchase of housings of the type described. Thus, the mechanisms 23 are readily programmable to function with the multi-space system.
Emphasis provided.
The parking meter mechanism (23) is supported beneath the PCB 52, of which said support may be considered to be equivalent to a support plate, along with the conventional mounting stanchions, as well as the bottom of the cylindrical housing (12) and lower housing (16), under a broadest reasonable interpretation, for example. Further, either of these support/stanchions are attached to the meter mechanism (23) which is attached to the housing (12), and the security locks, i.e., either high security locks (46 and 47) as illustrated in figures 1 and 2, and as mentioned in col. 2, line 66-col. 3, line 13, unlocks and locks the front and rear covers/doors (32, 40).
Therefore, since the bottom plate in the form of the bottom of the housing (12, 16), the bottom of the mounting stanchions, or support beneath the PCB (52) are all construed as supporting the apparatus, and are all connected to the entire rest of the superstructure of parking meter system (10), it is construed that the bottom plate, as part of the superstructure, is also used to “secure the front cover and rear cover together and secure the bottom plate to the existing structure in order to secure the metering device at the metering location. Since the locks are inherently operated by a key, “the locking mechanism” is construed to be “operated by rotation of a key inserted into the locking mechanism”, as the locks (46, 47) are depicted in figures 1 and 2 as being of a round shape with a slot for operation by a typical key. Again, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
It is noted that one potential amendment to further prosecution might be to indicate what structures/elements are directly connected to each other.
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner should there be any questions about this rejection or in an endeavor to explore potential amendments or potential allowable subject matter.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JEFFREY ALAN SHAPIRO whose telephone number is (571)272-6943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday generally between 8:30AM and 6:30PM.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/JEFFREY A SHAPIRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights