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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-21 are currently pending in the application. The rejections of record from the office action dated 30 June 2025 not repeated herein have been withdrawn.
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, 4-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawes et al. (US 2005/0077222, hereinafter “Dawes”) in view of Smith et al. (US 2012/0251797, hereinafter “Smith”).
In regard to claims 1, 4-5 and 7-10, Dawes discloses a liquid chromatography system that includes a separation column having an internal bore and an end fitting assembly (abstract). The separation column is preferably a micro capillary or nano liquid chromatography column ([0026]), also a metal frit and a metal sheath (i.e. liquid chromatography component; having a lumen with an interior surface)([0017]-[0018]), wherein the column has frits on both ends (i.e. terminating in first and second frits) ([0025]). The separation column is preferably made of glass lined metal tubing (i.e. metal or metallic liquid chromatography component; having a lumen with an interior surface; chromatographic column)([0026]).
Dawes is silent with regard to the column having an inert bilayer on an inner surface, wherein each layer of the inert bilayer coating comprises a different a silicon-based species selected from the group consisting of SiO2, SiC, Si3N4, SiOxCy, SiOxNy, SiCxHy or mixtures thereof, with a base layer of the inert bilayer coating comprising a SiOxCy species, the frits coated in the inert bilayer coating.
Smith discloses a chemical vapor deposition coating that is inert (abstract, [0033]). The method includes thermal decomposition of dimethylsilane to achieve desired surface properties ([abstract]). The coating layer can be a functionalized layer, in which the amorphous carbosilane is oxidized to form an oxidized layer of amorphous carboxysilane (i.e. SiC, SiOxCy, SiCxHy)([0047]). It is noted that there is additionally a diffusion layer 108 and a functionalized layer 110 ([0038]-[0039]). The coating is formed on any suitable substrate ([0035]).
Dawes and Smith both disclose forming a coating on a substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the functionalized coating layer of an amorphous carboxysilane of Smith on the metal tubing of Dawes before the application of glass motivated by the expectation of forming a separation column that has improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion over non-diffusion coatings ([Smith 0037]). Alternatively, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the functionalized coating layer of an amorphous carboxysilane of Smith on the entirety of the metal sheath of Dawes motivated by the expectation of forming a sheath that has improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion over non-diffusion coatings ([Smith 0037]).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the functionalized coating layer of an amorphous carboxysilane of Smith on the metal frits and/or metal sheath of Dawes motivated by the expectation of forming a frit/sheath that has improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion over non-diffusion coatings ([Smith 0037]).
The coating layer can be a functionalized layer, in which the amorphous carbosilane is oxidized to form an oxidized layer of amorphous carboxysilane (i.e. SiOxCy)(Smith [0047]).
It is the examiner’s position that, in the embodiment wherein the coating is under the glass layer, the glass layer could be considered the outer layer of the bilayer comprising a silicon based species. Alternatively, the diffusion layer and functionalized layer could be considered the two layers of the bilayer comprising a silicon based species (i.e. two or more layers each comprising a silicon-based species; different silicon species). It is the examiner’s position that the portion of the diffusion layer 108 that is on the surface 105 (as seen in Fig. 1) could be considered the base layer (i.e. contacting the inner surface of the column). It is the examiner’s position that the diffusion layer could be considered the base layer comprising a SiOxCy species since this layer comprises carboxysilane. It is noted that Smith at [0034] and [0038] clearly states that the carboxysilane includes a portion of the diffusion region. This is also clear in the representation of the diffusion layer 108 in Smith Fig. 1-2.
Regarding claim 4, modified Dawes discloses that the coating has thickness of between about 0.1 micrometers to about 3.0 micrometers (i.e. overlapping about 10 nm to about 5 µm)([Smith 0038]).
Regarding claim 5, the coating is amorphous (Smith [0038],[0047]).
Regarding claim 7, given that the coating is the same composition vapor deposited on the surface and not formed by different compositions in different positions on the surface, it is the examiner’s position that it would be uniform in composition and also it would have been obvious to coat the coating uniformly in structure and composition along the length of the column to provide the desirable properties of improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion evenly over the entire column.
Regarding claim 8, the coating comprises an amorphous array of Si-C bonds (Smith [0038])
Regarding claim 9, Dawes discloses that the diameter of the inner bore is 0.025 mm – 2.1 mm (i.e. overlapping less than 10 mm).
Regarding claim 10, while there is no specific length recited for the column of Dawes, it is the examiners position that it would have been obvious to choose a length in the claimed range of greater than 20 mm depending on the end use of the column and what analytes are being analyzed in the column. Change in size and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US 2002/0176800 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US 2012/0251797, hereinafter “Smith”).
In regard to claims 1, 4-5 and 7-10, Henry discloses a liquid chromatography system that includes a separation column having an internal bore and an end fitting assemblies, wherein the liquid chromatography column comprises metal, stainless steel and end-fittings containing frits that may be stainless steel (i.e. chromatographic device for separating analytes in a sample comprising a column terminating in first and second frits) (abstract, [0022], claim 6, [0057]).
Henry is silent with regard to the column having an inert bilayer on an inner surface, wherein each layer of the inert bilayer coating comprises a different a silicon-based species selected from the group consisting of SiO2, SiC, Si3N4, SiOxCy, SiOxNy, SiCxHy or mixtures thereof, with a base layer of the inert bilayer coating comprising a SiOxCy species, the frits coated in the inert bilayer coating.
Smith discloses a chemical vapor deposition coating that is inert (abstract, [0033]). The method includes thermal decomposition of dimethylsilane to achieve desired surface properties ([abstract]). The coating layer can be a functionalized layer, in which the amorphous carbosilane is oxidized to form an oxidized layer of amorphous carboxysilane (i.e. SiC, SiOxCy, SiCxHy)([0047]). It is noted that there is additionally a diffusion layer 108 and a functionalized layer 110 ([0038]-[0039]). The coating is formed on any suitable substrate ([0035]).
Henry and Smith both disclose forming a coating on a substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the functionalized coating layer of an amorphous carboxysilane of Smith on the entirety of metal tubing (including the inner lumen) and frits of Henry motivated by the expectation of forming a separation column/frit that has improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion over non-diffusion coatings ([Smith 0037]).
The coating layer can be a functionalized layer, in which the amorphous carbosilane is oxidized to form an oxidized layer of amorphous carboxysilane (i.e. SiOxCy)(Smith [0047]).
It is the examiner’s position that the diffusion layer and functionalized layer could be considered the two layers of the bilayer comprising a silicon based species (i.e. two or more layers each comprising a silicon-based species; different silicon species). It is the examiner’s position that the portion of the diffusion layer 108 that is on the surface 105 (as seen in Fig. 1) could be considered the base layer (i.e. contacting the inner surface of the column). It is the examiner’s position that the diffusion layer could be considered the base layer comprising a SiOxCy species since this layer comprises carboxysilane. It is noted that Smith at [0034] and [0038] clearly states that the carboxysilane includes a portion of the diffusion region. This is also clear in the representation of the diffusion layer 108 in Smith Fig. 1-2.
Regarding claim 4, modified Henry discloses that the coating has thickness of between about 0.1 micrometers to about 3.0 micrometers (i.e. overlapping about 10 nm to about 5 µm)([Smith 0038]).
Regarding claim 5, the coating is amorphous (Smith [0038],[0047]).
Regarding claim 7, given that the coating is the same composition vapor deposited on the surface and not formed by different compositions in different positions on the surface, it is the examiner’s position that it would be uniform in composition and also it would have been obvious to coat the coating uniformly in structure and composition along the length of the column to provide the desirable properties of improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion evenly over the entire column.
Regarding claim 8, the coating comprises an amorphous array of Si-C bonds (Smith [0038])
Regarding claim 9, Henry discloses that the diameter of the inner bore is 0.05 mm – 2 mm (i.e. overlapping less than 10 mm)([0006], claim 7-8)
Regarding claim 10, Henry discloses a length of 25 mm – 5000 mm (i.e. overlapping greater than 20 mm)(claim 8).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawes et al. (US 2005/0077222, hereinafter “Dawes”) and Smith et al. (US 2012/0251797, hereinafter “Smith”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Maiefski et al. (US 2002/0185442 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dawes teaches a chromatographic device as set forth above. Dawes does not disclose that the device comprises a sample delivery system comprising an autosampler.
Maiefski discloses a chromatography assembly comprising an autosampler (abstract, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an autosampler as taught by Maiefski into the chromatographic device in order to provide better collecting of samples for analysis in the chromatography assembly.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US 2002/0176800 A1) and Smith et al. (US 2012/0251797, hereinafter “Smith”), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Maiefski et al. (US 2002/0185442 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Dawes teaches a chromatographic device as set forth above. Dawes does not disclose that the device comprises a sample delivery system comprising an autosampler.
Maiefski discloses a chromatography assembly comprising an autosampler (abstract, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an autosampler as taught by Maiefski into the chromatographic device in order to provide better collecting of samples for analysis in the chromatography assembly.
Claims 12-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawes et al. (US 2005/0077222, hereinafter “Dawes”) in view of Smith et al. (US 2012/0251797, hereinafter “Smith”).
In regard to claims 12-18 and 20-21, Dawes discloses a liquid chromatography system that includes a separation column having an internal bore and an end fitting assembly (abstract). The separation column is preferably a micro capillary or nano liquid chromatography column ([0026]), also a metal frit and a metal sheath (i.e. liquid chromatography component; having a lumen with an interior surface)([0017]-[0018]), wherein the column has frits on both ends (i.e. terminating in first and second frits) ([0025]). The separation column is preferably made of glass lined metal tubing (i.e. metal or metallic liquid chromatography component; having a lumen with an interior surface; chromatographic column)([0026]).
Dawes is silent with regard to the column having an inert bilayer on an inner surface, wherein each layer of the inert bilayer coating comprises a different a silicon-based species selected from the group consisting of SiO2, SiC, Si3N4, SiOxCy, SiOxNy, SiCxHy or mixtures thereof, with a base layer of the inert bilayer coating comprising a SiOxCy species, the frits coated in the inert bilayer coating.
Smith discloses a chemical vapor deposition coating that is inert (abstract, [0033]). The method includes thermal decomposition of dimethylsilane to achieve desired surface properties ([abstract]). The coating layer can be a functionalized layer, in which the amorphous carbosilane is oxidized to form an oxidized layer of amorphous carboxysilane (i.e. SiC, SiOxCy, SiCxHy)([0047]). It is noted that there is additionally a diffusion layer 108 and a functionalized layer 110 ([0038]-[0039]). The coating is formed on any suitable substrate ([0035]).
Dawes and Smith both disclose forming a coating on a substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the functionalized coating layer of an amorphous carboxysilane of Smith on the metal tubing of Dawes before the application of glass motivated by the expectation of forming a separation column that has improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion over non-diffusion coatings ([Smith 0037]). Alternatively, it is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the functionalized coating layer of an amorphous carboxysilane of Smith on the entirety of the metal sheath of Dawes motivated by the expectation of forming a sheath that has improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion over non-diffusion coatings ([Smith 0037]).
It is the examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the functionalized coating layer of an amorphous carboxysilane of Smith on the metal frits and/or metal sheath of Dawes motivated by the expectation of forming a frit/sheath that has improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion over non-diffusion coatings ([Smith 0037]).
The coating layer can be a functionalized layer, in which the amorphous carbosilane is oxidized to form an oxidized layer of amorphous carboxysilane (i.e. SiOxCy)(Smith [0047]).
It is the examiner’s position that, in the embodiment wherein the coating is under the glass layer, the glass layer could be considered the outer layer of the bilayer comprising a silicon based species. Alternatively, the diffusion layer and functionalized layer could be considered the two layers of the bilayer comprising a silicon based species (i.e. two or more layers each comprising a silicon-based species; different silicon species). It is the examiner’s position that the portion of the diffusion layer 108 that is on the surface 105 (as seen in Fig. 1) could be considered the base layer (i.e. the inert bilayer coating being separate and distinct from the inner surface). It is the examiner’s position that the diffusion layer could be considered the base layer comprising a SiOxCy species since this layer comprises carboxysilane. It is noted that Smith at [0034] and [0038] clearly states that the carboxysilane includes a portion of the diffusion region. This is also clear in the representation of the diffusion layer 108 in Smith Fig. 1-2.
Regarding claim 13, modified Dawes discloses that the coating has thickness of between about 0.1 micrometers to about 3.0 micrometers (i.e. overlapping about 10 nm to about 5 µm)([Smith 0038]).
Regarding claim 14, the coating is amorphous (Smith [0038],[0047]).
Regarding claim 15, the coating comprises an amorphous array of Si-C bonds (Smith [0038]).
Regarding claim 16, given that the coating is the same composition vapor deposited on the surface and not formed by different compositions in different positions on the surface, it is the examiner’s position that it would be uniform in composition and also it would have been obvious to coat the coating uniformly in structure and composition along the length of the column to provide the desirable properties of improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion evenly over the entire column.
Regarding claim 17, Dawes discloses that the diameter of the inner bore is 0.025 mm – 2.1 mm (i.e. overlapping less than 10 mm).
Regarding claim 18, while there is no specific length recited for the column of Dawes, it is the examiners position that it would have been obvious to choose a length in the claimed range of greater than 20 mm depending on the end use of the column and what analytes are being analyzed in the column. Change in size and shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed invention is significant. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). MPEP 2144.04[R-1].
Regarding claim 20, given that there is no definition of how “diffuse” the boundary must be or in what way the boundary is considered “diffuse” and given that the material of the boundary is formed in a gradient of components (Fig. 2), it is the examiner’s position that the boundary is “diffuse”.
Regarding claim 21, given that there is no definition of how “abrupt” the boundary must be or in what way the boundary is considered “abrupt” and given that the boundary has a steep change in gradient (Fig. 1-2), it is the examiner’s position that the boundary is “abrupt”. Further, it appears from Fig. 1-2 that the boundary could be considered at the line of the bracket marking the boundary of the diffuse layer and would therefore be considered abrupt since it is perpendicular to the coating.
Claims 12-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US 2002/0176800 A1) in view of Smith et al. (US 2012/0251797, hereinafter “Smith”).
In regard to claims 12-18 and 20-21, Henry discloses a liquid chromatography system that includes a separation column having an internal bore and an end fitting assemblies, wherein the liquid chromatography column comprises metal, stainless steel and end-fittings containing frits that may be stainless steel (i.e. chromatographic device for separating analytes in a sample comprising a column terminating in first and second frits) (abstract, [0022], claim 6, [0057]).
Henry is silent with regard to the column having an inert bilayer on an inner surface, wherein each layer of the inert bilayer coating comprises a different a silicon-based species selected from the group consisting of SiO2, SiC, Si3N4, SiOxCy, SiOxNy, SiCxHy or mixtures thereof, with a base layer of the inert bilayer coating comprising a SiOxCy species, the frits coated in the inert bilayer coating.
Smith discloses a chemical vapor deposition coating that is inert (abstract, [0033]). The method includes thermal decomposition of dimethylsilane to achieve desired surface properties ([abstract]). The coating layer can be a functionalized layer, in which the amorphous carbosilane is oxidized to form an oxidized layer of amorphous carboxysilane (i.e. SiC, SiOxCy, SiCxHy)([0047]). It is noted that there is additionally a diffusion layer 108 and a functionalized layer 110 ([0038]-[0039]). The coating is formed on any suitable substrate ([0035]).
Henry and Smith both disclose forming a coating on a substrate. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize the functionalized coating layer of an amorphous carboxysilane of Smith on the entirety of metal tubing (including the inner lumen) and frits of Henry motivated by the expectation of forming a separation column/frit that has improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion over non-diffusion coatings ([Smith 0037]).
The coating layer can be a functionalized layer, in which the amorphous carbosilane is oxidized to form an oxidized layer of amorphous carboxysilane (i.e. SiOxCy)(Smith [0047]).
It is the examiner’s position that the diffusion layer and functionalized layer could be considered the two layers of the bilayer comprising a silicon based species (i.e. two or more layers each comprising a silicon-based species; different silicon species). It is the examiner’s position that the portion of the diffusion layer 108 that is on the surface 105 (as seen in Fig. 1) could be considered the base layer (i.e. the inert bilayer coating being separate and distinct from the inner surface). It is the examiner’s position that the diffusion layer could be considered the base layer comprising a SiOxCy species since this layer comprises carboxysilane. It is noted that Smith at [0034] and [0038] clearly states that the carboxysilane includes a portion of the diffusion region. This is also clear in the representation of the diffusion layer 108 in Smith Fig. 1-2.
Regarding claim 13, modified Henry discloses that the coating has thickness of between about 0.1 micrometers to about 3.0 micrometers (i.e. overlapping about 10 nm to about 5 µm)([Smith 0038]).
Regarding claim 14, the coating is amorphous (Smith [0038],[0047]).
Regarding claim 15, the coating comprises an amorphous array of Si-C bonds (Smith [0038]).
Regarding claim 16, given that the coating is the same composition vapor deposited on the surface and not formed by different compositions in different positions on the surface, it is the examiner’s position that it would be uniform in composition and also it would have been obvious to coat the coating uniformly in structure and composition along the length of the column to provide the desirable properties of improved chemical resistance, improved inertness, and improved adhesion evenly over the entire column.
Regarding claim 17, Henry discloses that the diameter of the inner bore is 0.05 mm – 2 mm (i.e. overlapping less than 10 mm)([0006], claim 7-8)
Regarding claim 18, Henry discloses a length of 25 mm – 5000 mm (i.e. overlapping greater than 20 mm)(claim 8).
Regarding claim 20, given that there is no definition of how “diffuse” the boundary must be or in what way the boundary is considered “diffuse” and given that the material of the boundary is formed in a gradient of components (Fig. 2), it is the examiner’s position that the boundary is “diffuse”.
Regarding claim 21, given that there is no definition of how “abrupt” the boundary must be or in what way the boundary is considered “abrupt” and given that the boundary has a steep change in gradient (Fig. 1-2), it is the examiner’s position that the boundary is “abrupt”. Further, it appears from Fig. 1-2 that the boundary could be considered at the line of the bracket marking the boundary of the diffuse layer and would therefore be considered abrupt since it is perpendicular to the coating.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dawes et al. (US 2005/0077222, hereinafter “Dawes”) and Smith et al. (US 2012/0251797, hereinafter “Smith”), as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Maiefski et al. (US 2002/0185442 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Dawes teaches a chromatographic device as set forth above. Dawes does not disclose that the device comprises a sample delivery system comprising an autosampler.
Maiefski discloses a chromatography assembly comprising an autosampler (abstract, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an autosampler as taught by Maiefski into the chromatographic device in order to provide better collecting of samples for analysis in the chromatography assembly.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henry et al. (US 2002/0176800 A1) and Smith et al. (US 2012/0251797, hereinafter “Smith”), as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Maiefski et al. (US 2002/0185442 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Dawes teaches a chromatographic device as set forth above. Dawes does not disclose that the device comprises a sample delivery system comprising an autosampler.
Maiefski discloses a chromatography assembly comprising an autosampler (abstract, [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an autosampler as taught by Maiefski into the chromatographic device in order to provide better collecting of samples for analysis in the chromatography assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 and new claim 12 are patentable over the references of record.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive as set forth in the rejections above.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 EST M-F.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/JAMES C YAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights