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 .
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “plurality of compartments” of claim 10 in Figure 7 must be shown and labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
2. Claim 8 and 10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Any remaining claims are rejected based on their dependency to a rejected base claim.
3. Claim 8 and 10 recite “the recess has a largest dimension larger than a largest dimension of the column”. It is unclear to the examiner as to what is a “largest dimension” of both the recess and column. Dimensions can be taken from anywhere and it is not specified from where said “largest dimensions” is being measured from. For example, measurements could be largest in the length, width, diameter, circumference, and much more in regards to the recess and column, which renders claim indefinite. As best understood from Figure 7, the largest diameter of recess will be the diameter and the largest dimension of the column will be the height/vertical length and will be treated as such for the sake of the current office action. However, further clarification is respectfully requested.
4. Claim 10 recites “bottom of the recess includes a plurality of compartments”. While Figure 1 shows the top view with compartment 27 visible, Figure 7 shows a cross section of Figure 1 with compartments not visible. It is unclear to the examiner as to how the compartments are arranged within the retainer, which renders drawings as insufficient. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-3, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (US Patent 10058982).
7. Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses a removal tool configured to:
be attached to a gripped member (defined by wrench 200, Figure 3.1), the gripped member including a through hole (see hole X on wrench 200) extending in a first direction (through axis X, Figure 5),
and a first side (second side 21, Figure 3.1) and a second side (first side 20, Figure 3.1) located at opposing sides of the first direction (sides are opposite to Each other on wrench 200, Figure 3.1)
the removal tool including:
a driving member (second driver 30, Figure 3.1) configured to be inserted in the through hole (hole X, Figure 3.1) from the first side (second side 21, Figure 3.1) in the first direction; and a retainer (first driver 10, Figure 3.1) configured to be disposed on the second side (first side 20, Figure 3.1) to prevent the driving member (second driver 30, Figure 3.1) from disengaging from the through hole (hole X, Figure 3.1) in the first direction (wherein first and second drivers are engaged, “preventing the wrench and the first driver from being displaced against each other”, col. 2, ll 5-7).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3.1 (Hu)
8. Regarding claim 2, Hu also discloses the removal tool of claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the driving member (second driver 30, Figure 3.1) includes an insertion hole (receiving bore 33, Figure 3.1) and a positioning hole (see Detail A, Figure 3.2), the positioning hole is disposed on an inner surface of the insertion hole (see circular holes on Detail A, disposed on inner surface of receiving bore 33)
PNG
media_image2.png
519
816
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3.2 (Hu)
the retainer (first driver 10, Figure 3.1) includes a block portion (defined by retaining edge 15, Figure 3.1), a column (connecting part 12, Figure 3.1) and a detent portion (ball member 14 disposed on connecting part 12, Figure 3.1), the column projects laterally from the block portion (connecting part 12 protrudes laterally from retaining edge 15, Figure 3.1)
a portion of the gripped member (wrench 200, Figure 3.1) around the through hole (hole X, Figure 3.1) is blocked by the block portion in the first direction (see how retaining edge 15 covers portion of wrench 200 on first side 20, Figure 5),
PNG
media_image3.png
565
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 5.1 (Hu)
the detent portion (ball member 14, Figure 3.1) projects radially from the column (ball member “disposed on the outer edge of the connecting part 12, paragraph [0018], Figure 4).
the column is configured to be inserted in the insertion hole (“receiving bore 33 is disposed at the center of the non-circular outer edge 31 of the second driver 30 for coupling with the connecting part 12”, col 3, ll 29-31) and the detent portion (ball member 14, Figure 3.1) is configured to be inserted in the positioning hole (Detail A, Figure 5.1) so that the retainer and the driving member are connected to each other (ball member disposed on first driver 10 “correspondingly engages or disengages the second driver”, col 4, ll 25-27, Figure 3.1).
9. Regarding claim 3, Hu discloses the removal tool of claim 2, and further discloses wherein
the block portion is plate-shaped (see Figure 3.1, showing retaining edge 15 is flat and circular, thus plate-shaped),
a thickness of the block portion is defined as a first dimension (see H1 to represent the thickness of retaining edge 15, Figure 5.2), a height of the column from the block portion is defined as a second dimension (see H2 to represent the height of connecting part 12, Figure 5.2), and a ratio of the second dimension and the first dimension is at least larger than 2 (while not mentioned explicitly, it is structurally visible that the height of connecting part 12 is at least twice the thickness of retaining edge 15, thus having a ratio of at least 2, Figure 5.2).
PNG
media_image4.png
776
1120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 5.2 (Hu)
10. Regarding claim 6, Hu discloses the removal tool of claim 2, and further discloses wherein
a side (top surface of retaining edge 15, Figure 3.1) of the retainer (first driver 10, Figure 3.1) opposite to the driving member (second driver 30, Figure 3.1) includes a recess (see hollow area around rod 13, a recess is present where rod 13 is inserted into, Figure 3.1)
11. Regarding claim 7, Hu discloses the removal tool of claim 6, and further teaches wherein
the recess (hollow area around rod 13, Figure 3.1) and the column (connecting part 12, Figure 3.1) are coaxially arranged (see bottom view of Hu, element 13 in which the recess now resides is coaxial with connecting part 12, Figure 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
599
712
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Hu)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claims 3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Patent 10058982).
14. In further reference to claim 3, Hu discloses in Figure 3 that there is a difference in the thickness H1 of the block (retaining edge 15, Figure 5.2) and the height H2 of the column (connecting part 12, Figure 5.2) of the retainer (first driver 10, Figure 3.1). Figure 3 shows that clearly, H2 is at least 2 times larger than H1.
However, Hu does not explicitly state that the ratio between the height of the column and the thickness of the block is at least 2 or larger.
Assuming the ratio between the second and first dimension is not larger than or equal to 2, there is no evidence of record that establishes that having a ratio of 2 or larger would result in a difference in the function of Hu’s device. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation to modify the thickness and dimensions of the retainer to best suit claimed invention. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that having a thickness ratio of 2 or more between the block and column resolves any problem, such that it produces insignificant results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu’s invention to have a thickness ratio of 2 or larger between the block and column of retainer as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
15. Regarding claim 8 Hu discloses the removal tool of claim 7, however does not disclose wherein
the recess has a largest dimension larger than a largest dimension of the column.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that having the dimension of the recess (taken to be the diameter for the purposes of the current office action) larger than the dimension of the column (taken to be the height/vertical length for the purposes of the current office action) would result in a difference in the function of Hu’s device. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation to modify the dimension of the recess in relative to the column to best suit the claimed invention. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that having the dimension of the recess larger than the dimension of the column resolves any problem, such that it produces insignificant results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu’s recess to have a larger dimension than the column as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
16. Regarding claim 9, Hu discloses the removal tool of claim 1, however it does not disclose wherein:
A ratio of the weight of the retainer and the weight of the driving member ranges from 0.02 to 0.6
There is no evidence of record that establishes that having a weight ratio range of 0.02 to 0.6 between the retainer and drive member would result in a difference in the function of Hu’s device. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation to modify the weight of the retainer and drive member to best suit the claimed invention and structural integrity. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that having a weight ratio of 0.02 to 0.6 between the retainer and drive member resolves any problem, such that it produces insignificant results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu’s invention to have a weight ratio of ranging from 0.02 to 0.6 between the retainer and drive member of retainer as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
17. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Patent 10058982) in view of Chen (US 2020/0269393).
18. Regarding claim 4, Hu discloses the removal tool of claim 2, and further discloses wherein
the detent portion is movably received (“by pressing rod 13, the ball member 14 correspondingly engages or disengages the second driver”, col 4, ll 25-27). While not explicitly stated, a receiving hole would be structurally necessary in order for ball member to engage or disengage.
However, Hu doesn’t teach the retainer including a receiving hole and an elastic member, wherein elastic member is abutted between inner surface of receiving hole and detent portion.
Chen is also concerned with a removal tool in which a detent mechanism is used to properly secure a driving member to a gripping member, such as a rachet wrench. Additionally, Chen teaches a similar structure wherein the retainer (driving head 42) further includes a receiving hole (cross section view shows hole on driving head 42, Figure 4) and an elastic member (represented by spring Y, Figure 4), the detent portion (represented by ball member X, Figure 4) is movably received in the receiving hole (it is understood that a spring load allows for ball to be moveable in the hole), and the elastic member is received in the receiving hole and abutted between an inner surface of the receiving hole and the detent portion (spring Y is shown to be between the inner surface of hole and ball member, Figure 4).
PNG
media_image6.png
758
938
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 (Chen)
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the retainer of Hu to incorporate a receiving hole and a spring to the detent mechanism. One of ordinary skill would recognize a hole would be necessary so that a detent portion, particularly a ball member disposed in the connecting part can be moveable. Furthermore, a spring would aid in the mechanism, keeping the ball member pushed in or out the positioning hole when engaged or disengaged.
19. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Patent 10058982) in view of Arnold (US Patent 5819606) and Feuerstein (US Patent 9956670).
20. Regarding claim 5, Hu discloses the removal tool of claim 2, however it does not disclose wherein
the block portion and the column are made of plastic and formed in one piece, and the driving member is made of metal.
Arnold is also concerned with having a secure retainer and a drive member for a socket wrench. Arnold also teaches that the retainer (identification insert 20, Figure 6) has the block portion (upper portion, Figure 6) and the column (lower portion, Figure 6) are made of plastic (“insert is a plastic sleeve having a top surface, an inner surface, an outer surface and an outer diameter”, col 2 ll 8-9) and formed in one piece (See identification insert being a cohesive piece, Figure 6)
PNG
media_image7.png
502
937
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 6
However, Arnold does not explicitly say that the drive member is made out of metal. It is known in the art that drive members are usually made of a metal material.
To further show that metal drive members are known in the prior art, Feuerstein is also concerned with rachets that include drive members (sockets) for rachets. Feuerstein further teaches wherein the drive member (socket accessory 40a) is made of metal (where socket accessory 40a has a “relative amount of metal at each of the first and the second ends 304, 308, col 5 ll 65-67)
it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hu’s the block and column portion to be made of plastic in view of Arnold and the drive member to be metal in view of Feuerstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using plastic for the block and column would reduce manufacturing processes and costs, as well provide some flexibility when engaging/disengaging with drive member. One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize drive members are usually made of metal to provide increased durability and strength to interact with other metal fasteners.
21. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US Patent 10058982) in view of Chen (US 2020/0269393), Arnold (US Patent 5819606), Feuerstein (US Patent 9956670) and Chang (US 2010/0162857).
22. Regarding claim 10, Hu disclose the removal tool of claim 3, and further discloses wherein
a side (top surface of retaining edge 15, Figure 3.1) of the retainer (first driver 10, figure 3.1) opposite to the driving member (second driver 30, Figure 3.1) includes a recess (see hollow area around rod 13, a recess is present where rod 13 is inserted into, Figure 3.1)
the recess (hollow area around rod 13, Figure 3.1) and the column (connecting part 12, Figure 3.1) are coaxially arranged (see bottom view of Hu, element 13 in which the recess resides is coaxial with connecting part 12, Figure 4). the recess (hollow area around rod 13, Figure 3.1) is located at the center of the retainer see bottom view of Hu, showing column and recess is at the center of retainer, Figure 4)
the column is square (bottom view of Hu showing connecting part 12 having a square shape, Figure 4); the recess is circular (hollow area around rod 13 is circular, Figure 4); the block portion (retaining edge 15, Figure 3.1) is configured to abut the gripped member (wrench 200, Figure 3.1) at the second side (retaining edge 15 making contact with first side 20, Figure 5);
the driving member (second drive 30, Figure 3.1) includes an insertion portion (non-circular outer edge 31 of second driver 30, Figure 3.1) and a connection portion connected to each other (see circular edge at the bottom of second drive 30, Detail B, Figure 5.3), the insertion portion (non-circular outer edge 31, Figure 3.1) is configured to be inserted in the through hole (see non-circular outer edge 31 coaxially aligned with hole X, configured to be inserted into, Figure 3.1), the insertion portion (non-circular outer edge 31 of second driver 30, Figure 3.1) includes the insertion hole (receiving bore 33, Figure 3.1) and the positioning hole (Detail A, Figure 3.1), the connection portion (Detail B, Figure 5.3) includes a socket hole (hexagonal driving bore 35), and the socket hole is in communication with the insertion hole (hexagonal driving bore 35 wherein it is “concavely disposed on the other end of the second driver 30 away from the non-circular outer edge 31 for receiving the screw member”, col 3, ll 33-35);
the block portion (retaining edge 15, Figure 5.3) has a radial dimension larger than a radial dimension of the insertion portion (non-circular outer edge 31 of second driver 30, Figure 5.31) and a radial dimension of the connection portion (Detail B, Figure 5.3). See Figure 5, in which shows the diameter of retaining edge 15 being larger than element 31 and Detail B, thus having a larger radius than both insertion portion and connection portion.
PNG
media_image8.png
609
745
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 5
Hu also further discloses wherein the detent portion is movably received (“by pressing rod 13, the ball member 14 correspondingly engages or disengages the second driver”, col 4, ll 25-27). While not explicitly stated, a receiving hole would be structurally necessary in order for ball member to engage or disengage.
However, Hu doesn’t disclose wherein the retainer including a receiving hole and an elastic member, wherein elastic member is abutted between inner surface of receiving hole and detent portion.
Chen is also concerned with a removal tool in which detents are used to properly secure a gripping member to a driving member, such as a rachet wrench. Additionally, Chen teaches a similar structure wherein the retainer (driving head 42) further includes a receiving hole (cross section view shows hole on driving head 42, Figure 4) and an elastic member ( represented by spring Y, Figure 4), the detent portion (represented by ball member X, Figure 4) is movably received in the receiving hole (it is understood that a spring load allows for ball to be moveable in the hole), and the elastic member is received in the receiving hole and abutted between an inner surface of the receiving hole and the detent portion (spring Y is shown to be between the inner surface of hole and ball member, Figure 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Hu to have a retainer incorporate a receiving hole and an elastic member for the detent mechanism as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a hole would be necessary so that a detent portion, particularly a ball member disposed in the connecting part can be moveable. Furthermore, a spring would aid in the mechanism, keeping the ball member pushed in or out the positioning hole when engaged or disengaged.
Hu also does not disclose wherein the block portion and the column are made of plastic and formed in one piece, and the driving member is made of metal.
Arnold is also concerned with having a secure retainer and a drive member for a socket wrench. Arnold also teaches that the retainer (identification insert 20, Figure 6) has the block portion (upper portion, Figure 6) and the column (lower portion, Figure 6) are made of plastic (“insert is a plastic sleeve having a top surface, an inner surface, an outer surface and an outer diameter”, col 2 ll 8-9) and formed in one piece (See identification insert being a cohesive piece, Figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Hu to have the block and column portion to be made of plastic as taught by Arnold. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using plastic for the block and column would reduce manufacturing processes and costs, as well provide some flexibility when engaging/disengaging with drive member.
However, Hu modified in view of Arnold does not explicitly say that the drive member is made out of metal. It is known in the art that drive members are usually made of a metal material.
To further show that metal drive members are known in the prior art, Feuerstein is also concerned with rachets that include drive members (sockets) for rachets. Feuerstein further teaches wherein the drive member (socket accessory 40a) is made of metal (where socket accessory 40a has a “relative amount of metal at each of the first and the second ends 304, 308”, col 5 ll 65-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Hu to have the drive member to made of metal as taught by Feuerstein. One of ordinary skill in the art would also recognize drive members are usually made of metal to provide increased durability and strength to interact with other metal fasteners.
Hu additionally does not disclose a ratio of the weight of the retainer and the weight of the driving member ranges from 0.02 to 0.6
There is no evidence of record that establishes that having a weight ratio range of 0.02 to 0.6 between the retainer and drive member would result in a difference in the function of Hu’s device. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation to modify the weight of the retainer and drive member to best suit the claimed invention and structural integrity. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that having a weight ratio of 0.02 to 0.6 between the retainer and drive member resolves any problem, such that it produces insignificant results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu’s invention to have a weight ratio of ranging from 0.02 to 0.6 between the retainer and drive member of retainer as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Furthermore, Hu does not disclose wherein the recess has a largest dimension larger than a largest dimension of the column.
However, there is no evidence of record that establishes that having the dimension of the recess (taken to be the diameter for the purposes of the current office action) larger than the dimension of the column (taken to be the height/vertical length for the purposes of the current office action) would result in a difference in the function of Hu’s device. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation to modify the dimension of the recess in relative to the column to best suit the claimed invention. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that having the dimension of the recess larger than the dimension of the column resolves any problem, such that it produces insignificant results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu’s invention for the recess to have a largest dimension larger than the column as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Lastly, Hu also does not disclose where in a bottom of the recess includes a plurality of compartments.
Chang is also concerned with a wrench comprising of a retainer and a driving member with detent mechanism. Furthermore, it teaches wherein a bottom of recess (Detail X, Figure 3) includes a plurality of compartments (further concentric recess Detail Y and recess for element 23, Detail Z, Figure 3). Furthermore, extra compartments allow for pawls to be included in the drive portion, thereby allowing the tool to offer a large torque, paragraph [0010].
PNG
media_image9.png
717
760
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 3
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Hu to include a plurality of compartments at the bottom of the recess as taught by Chang. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that adding a plurality of compartments at the bottom of the recess of a retainer allows for additional parts to be added to device. As shown by Chang for example, compartments can allow for rods to connect to other parts such as pawls to offer a larger torque by the drive portion.
Conclusion
23. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US Patent 9975223) teaches a rachet wrench with retainer and driving member.
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEGO J NG whose telephone number is (571)270-0802. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Fri 8:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. 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.
/D.J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights