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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-7, and 11 of U.S. Patent 11435711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim a storage device and temperature control of the electronic device including the same based on measured temperature and compared to an upper limit temperature and a lower limit temperature. A comparison between of independent claim 1 of the current application and independent claim 1 is provided below for an example.
Current Application 18/620343
US Patent 11435711
Claim 1. An electronic device, comprising:
a storage device configured to receive a request from a host; and
a sensor configured to measure a temperature of the storage device;
wherein the storage device is configured to store a value of an upper limit temperature and a value of a lower limit temperature, and to output a value of a first bit and a value of a second bit to the host in response to the request,
wherein the storage device is further configured to set the value of the first bit when a temperature of the storage device is higher than the value of the upper limit temperature and to set the value of the second bit when the temperature of the storage device is lower than the value of the lower limit temperature, and
wherein the storage device is cooled by a throttling operation, based on information including at least one of the value of the first bit that is output from the storage device or the value of the second bit that is output from the storage device.
Claim 1. An electronic device, comprising:
a storage device configured to receive a request from a host; and
a sensor configured to measure a temperature of the storage device;
wherein the storage device is configured to store a value of an upper limit temperature and a value of a lower limit temperature, and to output a value of a first single bit and a value of a second single bit to the host based on the request, and
wherein the storage device is further configured to set the value of the first single bit when a temperature of the storage device is higher than the upper limit temperature and to set the value of the second single bit when the temperature of the storage device is lower than the lower limit temperature, and
wherein the storage device is configured to perform an operation of controlling the temperature based on a request received from the host responsive to at least one of the value of the first single bit and the value of the second single bit being set.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-12, 15, and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6-7, 11, 24-26, and 29-31 of U.S. Patent 10761501. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim a storage device and temperature control of the electronic device including the same based on measured temperature and compared to an upper limit temperature and a lower limit temperature. A comparison between of independent claim 1 of the current application and independent claim 1 plus dependent claim 9 is provided below for an example.
Current Application 18/620343
US Patent 10761501
Claim 1. An electronic device, comprising:
a storage device configured to receive a request from a host; and
a sensor configured to measure a temperature of the storage device;
wherein the storage device is configured to store a value of an upper limit temperature and a value of a lower limit temperature, and to output a value of a first bit and a value of a second bit to the host in response to the request,
wherein the storage device is further configured to set the value of the first bit when a temperature of the storage device is higher than the value of the upper limit temperature and to set the value of the second bit when the temperature of the storage device is lower than the value of the lower limit temperature, and
wherein the storage device is cooled by a throttling operation, based on information including at least one of the value of the first bit that is output from the storage device or the value of the second bit that is output from the storage device.
Claim 1. An electronic device, comprising:
a storage device configured to receive a request from a host; and
a sensor configured to measure a temperature of the storage device;
wherein the storage device is configured to store a value of an upper limit temperature and a value of a lower limit temperature, and to output a value of a first bit and a value of a second bit to the host in response to the request, and
wherein the storage device is further configured to set the value of the first bit when a temperature of the storage device is higher than the upper limit temperature and to set the value of the second bit when the temperature of the storage device is lower than the lower limit temperature.
Claim 9. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the storage device is cooled by throttling operation, based on information including the value of the first bit that is output from the storage device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-5, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites limitation of “wherein the lower limit temperature is -37o C” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 4 recites limitation of “wherein the upper limit temperature is 108o C” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 5 recites limitation of “wherein a temperature range is compliant with a grade 2 or a grade 3 of the AEC (Automotive Electronics Council)” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 13 recites limitation of “wherein the lower limit temperature is -37o C” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 14 recites limitation of “wherein the upper limit temperature is 108o C” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support.
Claim 15 recites limitation of “wherein a temperature range is compliant with a grade 2 or a grade 3 of the AEC (Automotive Electronics Council)” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support.
Enablement
Claims 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 3 recites limitation of “wherein the lower limit temperature is -37o C” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 4 recites limitation of “wherein the lower limit temperature is 108o C” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 5 recites limitation of “wherein a temperature range is compliant with a grade 2 or a grade 3 of the AEC (Automotive Electronics Council)” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 13 recites limitation of “wherein the lower limit temperature is -37o C” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 14 recites limitation of “wherein the lower limit temperature is 108o C” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
Claim 15 recites limitation of “wherein a temperature range is compliant with a grade 2 or a grade 3 of the AEC (Automotive Electronics Council)” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Examiner searched the provided detailed description but he was unable to find any support. Therefore, the examiner submits that it would require undue experimentation to make and/or use the claimed limitation.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10-11, 13-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodes et al (WO 2017146888; hereinafter Hodes) in view of Li (US Pub. 2018/0293191).
As per claim 1, Hodes discloses an electronic device, comprising:
a storage device configured to receive a request from a host [Fig. 1; Data Storage Device 102; DEVICE (e.g., host device) 170; page 5, lines 10-12]; and
a sensor configured to measure a temperature of the storage device [Fig. 1; Temperature Sensor 110; page 5, lines 16-18];
wherein the storage device is configured to store a value of an upper limit temperature and a value of a lower limit temperature, and to output a value of a first bit and a value of a second bit to the host in response to the request [Fig. 1; First Lower Threshold 140a; First Upper Threshold 142a; page 8, lines 28-31],
wherein the storage device is further configured to set the value of the first bit when a temperature of the storage device is higher than the value of the upper limit temperature and to set the value of the second bit when the temperature of the storage device is lower than the value of the lower limit temperature [Fig. 1; Temperature Data 112a; page 8, lines 3-6], and
wherein the storage device is cooled by a throttling operation, based on information including at least one of the value of the first bit that is output from the storage device or the value of the second bit that is output from the storage device [Fig. 1; First Throttling Mode 148; Second Throttling Mode 150; page 10, lines 16-29].
Hodes does not specifically disclose utilizing a bit indicator to indicate if the temperature of the storage device is above or lower than a threshold temperature. But a routineer in the art would know how to use a bit indicator because use of a bit indicator is well known in the art. However, Li (in the same field of endeavor, i.e., monitoring the temperature of a storage device) discloses utilizing a first bit to indicate whether the temperature exceeds the threshold [para 0152]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cited references as both are directed to monitor the temperature of a storge device and take an action accordingly. Moreover, instead using the temperature data storage 112a as by Hodes, one can obviously utilize the known technique of using a bit as a design choice without any major effect on the disclosed invention.
As per claim 11, Hodes discloses a storage device, comprising:
a non-volatile memory device configured to store data [Fig. 1; Memory 104; page 5, lines 19-22];
a controller configured to store a value of an upper limit temperature and a value of a lower limit temperature, and to output a value of a first bit and a value of a second bit to an application processor in response to a request received from the application processor [Fig. 1; Controller 130; Temperature Calibration Engine storing a first lower threshold, a first upper threshold, and etc.; Controller 130 is in communication with host device 170 (i.e., an application processor); page 5, lines 10-14], and
a sensor configured to measure a temperature of the storage device [Fig. 1; Temperature Sensor 110; page 5, lines 16-18],
the non-volatile memory device and the controller being configured for installation in a vehicle [Fig. 1; the disclosed storage device is not limited to a particular environment or system],
wherein the controller comprises:
a first register configured to manage the value of the upper limit temperature [Fig. 1; First Upper Threshold 142a; page 8, lines 28-31];
a second register configured to manage the value of the lower limit temperature [Fig. 1; First Lower Threshold 140a; page 8, lines 28-31]; and
wherein the controller is further configured to set the value of the first bit to one when a temperature of the storage device is higher than the value of the upper limit temperature and to set the value of the second bit to one when the temperature of the storage device is lower than the value of the lower limit temperature [Fig. 1; Temperature Data 112a; page 8, lines 3-6], and
wherein the storage device is cooled by throttling operation, based on information including at least one of the value of the first bit that is output from the storage device or the value of the second bit that is output from the storage device [Fig. 1; First Throttling Mode 148; Second Throttling Mode 150; page 10, lines 16-29].
Hodes does not specifically disclose regarding use of a register. But use of a register for storing a small amount of data is well known in the art. However, Li (in the same field of endeavor, i.e., monitoring the temperature of a storage device) discloses utilizing registers [para 0017-0018; a first status register; para 0021-0022; a second status register]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cited references as both are directed to monitor the temperature of a storge device and take an action accordingly. Moreover, instead using storage(s) in the Temperature Calibration Engine 138 as by Hodes [Fig. 1], one can obviously utilize the known technique of using a register as a design choice without any major effect on the disclosed invention.
Hodes does not specifically disclose utilizing a bit indicator to indicate if the temperature of the storage device is above or lower than a threshold temperature. But a routineer in the art would know how to use a bit indicator because use of a bit indicator is well known in the art. However, Li (in the same field of endeavor, i.e., monitoring the temperature of a storage device) discloses utilizing a first bit to indicate whether the temperature exceeds the threshold [para 0152]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cited references as both are directed to monitor the temperature of a storge device and take an action accordingly. Moreover, instead using the temperature data storage 112a as by Hodes, one can obviously utilize the known technique of using a bit as a design choice without any major effect on the disclosed invention.
As per claims 3 and 13, Hodes discloses wherein the lower limit temperature is -37o C [Fig. 1; First Lower Threshold 140a; page 8, lines 28-31; design choice based on operating environment].
As per claims 4 and 14, Hodes discloses wherein the upper limit temperature is 108 C [Fig. 1; First Upper Threshold 142a; page 8, lines 28-31; design choice based on operating environment].
As per claim 6, Hodes discloses further comprising an application processor configured to transmit a command to the storage device, wherein the storage device is configured to transmit a command response to the application processor in response to the command, the command response including the information [Fig. 1; Controller 130 is in communication with host device 170 (i.e., an application processor); page 5, lines 10-14].
As per claim 7, Hodes discloses wherein the storage device is configured to perform an operation corresponding to the command, and return a command response indicating a result of the operation, the command response further including the information [Fig. 1, 2; Controller 130 and/or Temperature Calibration Engine 138 and/or host device 170 can send commands to the storage device 102 and several operations may be performed].
Claims 2, 5, 8-9, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodes et al (WO 2017146888; hereinafter Hodes) in view of Li (US Pub. 2018/0293191) and further in view of Yum Ho Suk et al (KR 20190011654; hereinafter Yum).
The applied reference has a common inventor(s) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claims 2, 5, 8-9, 12, 15, and 17 Hodes and Li discloses the invention substantially. Hodes and Li do not disclose regarding a compliant with a grade of the AEC (Automotive Electronics Council). But AEC is well known as it is established in the 1990s. However, Yum (in the same field of endeavor, i.e., monitoring temperature of a storage device) discloses a reference temperature range can be determined according to the AEC (Automotive Electronics Council Standard) [page 2, paragraph 14; “The reference temperature range refers to the temperature range for the storage device 1400 to operate safely and normally without causing an error. The reference temperature range according to one embodiment can be determined according to the AEC standard (Automotive Electronics Council Standard), which is a semiconductor reliability test standard for a vehicle. For example, according to AEC standard Grade 3, the reference temperature range can be determined from -40 ° C to 85 ° C.”]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cited references as these are directed to monitor the temperature of a storage device and take an action accordingly.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Hodes et al (WO 2017146888; hereinafter Hodes) in view of Li (US Pub. 2018/0293191) and further in view of Yum Ho Suk et al (CN 113157208; hereinafter Yum).
The applied reference has a common inventor(s) with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
As per claims 10 and 18, Hodes and Li disclose the invention substantially. Hodes and Li do not specifically disclose regarding that the sensor configured to sense the temperature of a case of the storage device. But a routineer in the art would know how to utilize a temperature sensor to sense the temperature of a case of the storage device. However, Yum (in the same field of endeavor, i.e., monitoring the temperature of a storage device) discloses a sensor configured to sense the temperature of a case (housing) of the storage device [page 5; “Referring to Fig. 3, TCase indicates the temperature of the housing of the storage device 2400, …”; claim 11]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cited references as these are directed to monitor the temperature of a storage device and take an action accordingly.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. US-20170052551 discloses storage devices including temperature management.
C. US-9405356 discloses managing power and/or temperature in a data storage system.
D. US-20150160866 discloses a data storage device includes a memory and a controller. A method includes calibrating a first portion of the interface in response to a first bit transition from a first bit value to a second bit value of data to be sent via the interface.
Q. DE-102007012177 discloses a method and apparatus for determining the temperature of a storage device and utilizing a first bit and/or a second bit when a measured temperature is lower than the first reference temperature.
R. CN-101322295 discloses a protection method for protecting standby battery and teaches how to use a bit (by setting it to 1) to indicate when the temperature becomes 55 degree or lower or by setting the bit to 0 when the temperature becomes -50 or less.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURESH K SURYAWANSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-3668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at 5712729774. 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.
/SURESH SURYAWANSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights