DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
In numerous preliminary submissions, the claims and other portions of the application were resubmitted, however the claims appear to be unchanged in each submission. Claims 1-11, filed 11/20/2024, are pending and are currently being examined.
Pro Se Notes
The application and claims contain numerous issues before addressing the claimed invention. The examiner will provide below a list of issues ranging from formality, clarity, and relevant prior art, however based on the presented application and claims, addressing ever single issue at this point is very difficult and therefore the listed issues below may not fully address every single issue, and the application and claims should be wholly addressed and corrected.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the appear to be photocopies or screenshots of computer images, which are generally not very clear. Also, the figures show no reference numerals to assist a viewer on showing and mapping critical features of the invention from the specification and claims and showing them in the figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains implied language (ex. “This invention provides…”). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Further, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: critical sections of the specification, notably the Detailed Description, is severely lacking any information about the details of the invention. The figures are briefly discussed immediately followed by the claims, however there is no real description of the invention where the Detailed Description should be to provide details about the particulars of the invention. This section should also include reference numerals that are provided in the drawings that specifically point out and discuss the structural features of the invention. See other patents for examples of what a specification should look like and contain.
Appropriate correction is required.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Claim Objections
The presented claims contain numerous formality and clarity issues and are make full examination of the presented claims problematic at this point. The claims are being interpreted as best understood at this point, however the objections and rejections of the claims may be not fully exhaustive and all similar and relevant issues should also be corrected. See the cited patents for examples of proper claim writing.
Each of the claims should be numbered “Claim X: “, and then begin the claim language, which should begin with “A” for each independent claim, and “The” for each dependent claim.
For example, Claim 1 could more clearly read as follows:
“Claim 1: A kit for modular building blocks designed to be assembled for toy building or hamster and small pet mazes, comprising:
- - insert structural claim limitations - -.”
Then each consequent dependent claim could more clearly read as follows:
“Claim X: The kit of claim X (insert claim this claim would depend from), further comprising: - - insert additional structural claim limitations or features- -.”.
Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation (37 CFR 1.75(i)). Each claim should begin with a capital letter and end with a period and each claim should only contain one period (each claim is a single sentence, see MPEP 608.01(m)). Each claim should not include any other capital letters or periods (ex. claims 2-4, 6, 10-11).
Each claim should not include limitations or qualifying limitations in parenthesis (only reference numerals may appear in parenthesis in the claims (ex. claims 1-4, 7, 9-11), and reference numerals in parenthesis have no effect on the scope of the claims). The limitations or claim language in parenthesis is not considered part of the claim during examination
Each claim may only depend from a single other claim. For example, claim 5 recites references to both claim 4 and claim 3 therein, which is improper.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Limitations are presented in parenthesis which is unclear whether they are part of the claim language or not. The claim appears directed towards a system/design product and/or a method which is improper and unclear. The language of “is shown and described” does not provide any actual claim language to consider. Appropriate correction is required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim starting with “Claim 1” is unclear and confusing”. Multiple capital letters are used which is improper. The claim contains a period therein and does not end with a period. Limitations are presented in parenthesis which is unclear whether they are part of the claim language or not. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple capital letters, limitations in parenthesis, and has an improper preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple capital letters, limitations in parenthesis, and has an improper preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple capital letters, references multiple dependent claims, and has an improper preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple capital letters, references multiple dependent claims, and has an improper preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple capital letters, limitations in parenthesis, and has an improper preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple capital letters, references a dependent claim twice, and has an improper preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple capital letters, limitations in parenthesis, references a dependent claim twice, and has an improper preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple capital letters, limitations in parenthesis, multiple periods, and has an improper preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains multiple capital letters, limitations in parenthesis, multiple periods, references a dependent claim twice, and has an improper preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Further, Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “The design” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “The Floor/Ceiling Block” in line 1 and “its sides” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “The Side Wall Block” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “The wall prongs” in line 1, “the holes” and “the floor/ceiling blocks” in line 1, “the top” and “the bottom” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “The Side Wall prongs” in line 1, “the other” in line 3, and “the same holes” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, it is unclear what “top and bottom” is defining as there is no “top” or “bottom” previously defined. It is unclear what “one from the top and the other from the bottom” is (one of what?).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “Floor/Ceiling Blocks” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “Floor blocks” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “Connector block prongs” and “the extension holes” in line 1 and “the Floor/Ceiling Blocks” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the main floor/ceiling block”, “top or bottom and on any of its sides” in line 2, “the other horizontal floor/ceiling blocks” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “The blocks sizes” in line 2, “the whole well-being”, “the pet”, and “its owners” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Further, regarding claim 1, the phrase "for example" (in this case, “and possible assembly methods”) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further, regarding claim 2, it is unclear if the language of the parenthesis is intended to be included or not in the claim scope. Using language like “can also” is unclear as to if this limitation would actually be required or not.
Further, regarding claim 11, the phrase "for example" (in this case, “We also present different possible assemblies” in line 1 and “including but not limited to” in line 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) design for modular building blocks (and possible assembly methods) for toy buildings and/or for hamster and small pet mazes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not require any actual structural elements and may practically simply be performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not provide any structural or physical elements and only recite theoretical abstract ideas. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements to perform the design and possible assembly method steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (theoretical building block, but not actually required by the claim). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) design for modular building blocks (and possible assembly methods) for toy buildings and/or for hamster and small pet mazes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not require more than generic building blocks and may practically simply be performed in the mind. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the discussed building blocks are very unclearly claimed and appear to be capable of being performed with generally generic building blocks in the art. The building blocks are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic building blocks having holes, prongs, and sides allowing connection between blocks) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic building block component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using building blocks to perform both the design and possible assembly methods steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsai et al. US Pub. No. 2014/0274432.
Tsai teaches:
In Reference to Claim 1
The design for modular building blocks (and possible assembly methods) for toy buildings and/or for hamster and small pet mazes is shown and described (a set of modular building blocks having different shapes and functions connectable to one another to form a toy building or a pet/animal 3D maze, abstract, Fig. 1-11).
In Reference to Claim 2
Claim 1 comprises three building blocks:
Floor (which can also act as a ceiling) (blocks 2/21/112 may be used as floor or ceiling blocks, Ex. Fig. 1-2 and 7-11 show blocks used as floor and ceiling blocks).
Side Walls (which can also act as external or internal walls) (blocks 1/11/112 may be used as sidewall blocks, ex. Fig. 1-2, 5, 7-11)
Connectors (connects floors or ceilings) (each panel may include connectors thereon, ex., Fig. 1-2, or may include connecting blocks/pieces, ex. 13 of Fig. 7-11)
In Reference to Claim 3
The Floor/Ceiling Block of Claim 2 contains consecutive holes on each of its sides (See FIG. 1) (each floor/ceiling block may include consecutive holes on sides thereof, ex. 221/231/241/ and other elongate connecting slots 1121, Fig. 1-2 and 7-11).
In Reference to Claim 4
The Side Wall block of Claim 2 contains prongs on top and bottom sides (See FIG. 2) (blocks 1/11/112 may be used as sidewall blocks and include connecting prongs, ex. 1111, 1112, 1113, on sides of the blocks, ex. Fig. 1-2, 5, 7-11).
In Reference to Claim 5
The wall prongs of Claim 4 interlock with the holes on the floor/ceiling blocks of Claim 3 either from the top or from the bottom (connecting prongs interlock with respective holes to connect respective and adjacent blocks to one another, Fig. 1-2, 5-11).
In Reference to Claim 6
The Side Wall prongs of Claim 4 are arranged differently on top and bottom such that we allow two different walls to connect to the same floor/ceiling block of Claim 3, one from the top and the other from the bottom creating multiple layers of floors - the prongs would complement each other and not compete on the same holes (connecting prongs are arranged to interlock at tops, bottoms, and sides with respective holes (not competing for same holes) to alternately connect respective and adjacent blocks to one another, Fig. 1-2, 5-11).
In Reference to Claim 7
Floor/Ceiling Blocks of Claim 2 also have long (aka, extension) holes on four sides (floor/ceiling blocks 2 may include elongate holes on at least 4 sides/edges, ex. Fig. 8).
In Reference to Claim 8
Floor blocks of Claim 2 connect to each other using Connector Blocks of Claim 2 to construct wider and extendible floors and ceilings (floor/ceiling blocks are capable of being connected to others via connector means/blocks to construct wider or extended floors and ceiling).
In Reference to Claim 9
Connector Block prongs of Claim 2 (See FIG. 3) interlock with the extension holes in the Floor/Ceiling Blocks of Claim 2 (connector blocks/means interlock with holes in the sides and floor/ceiling blocks to connect the blocks together to form the 3d maze, Fig. 1-11).
In Reference to Claim 10
Hence, the main floor/ceiling block of Claim 2 (FIG. 1) allows interlocking with side walls from top or bottom and on any of its sides; it also has extension holes to connect to other horizontal floor/ceiling blocks. This allows for modular and expandable design in 3 dimensions (the respective blocks connect to one another on all their sides to form the desired 3D maze structure as desired by the user, Fig. 1-2, 5-11).
In Reference to Claim 11
We also present different possible assemblies of Claim 2 where those building blocks can constitute toy buildings or toy mazes (See Figures 9 and 10). The blocks sizes of Claim 2 and assembly can be scaled to accommodate different applications, including but not limited to, hamster mazes to help with the whole well-being of the pet and its owners (the assembled structure is modular to allow creation of different designs, building, or mazes as desired and is capable of being used by pets/animals as shown, Fig. 1-11).
Brief Discussion of Other Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Nieuwoudt (AU 2017100970), Roy (6,575,462), Hoover (4,953,502), Miller (3,857,364), Meyer (3,516,389) teach similar modular animal mazes and Johnson (12,029,997), Brandao (10,724,240), LaChance (10,086,304), Ben Shalom (9,724,618), Ziegler (8,845,381), Simmons (7,833,077), Jensen (2018/0056209), Ksobiech (2014/0235133), Lai (2008/0303212), Matos (2005/0014441), Kurzen (4,635,411), , teach similar modular panel building blocks for buildings or forts.
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711