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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II in the reply filed on 6/9/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 6-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/9/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 6/21/24 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. None of the listed references have copies in the file wrapper, nor do they have a statement of relevance in English. The aforementioned information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Applicant should provide a copy of these references in order to be considered.
The information disclosure statements filed 6/21/24 and 3/30/26 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1), which requires the following: (1) a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office; (2) U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications listed in a section separately from citations of other documents; (3) the application number of the application in which the information disclosure statement is being submitted on each page of the list; (4) a column that provides a blank space next to each document to be considered, for the examiner’s initials; and (5) a heading that clearly indicates that the list is an information disclosure statement. All of the foreign references; the non-patent literature except for the EP Office Action for EP Application No. 22783641.8 dated March 11, 2026; and the other references are present in the file wrapper are not listed in either of the aforementioned information disclosure statements. The references have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. The Applicant should submit a new information disclosure statement that lists these references in order for the references to be considered.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “52” has been used to designate both an actuator in Fig. 8 and what appears to be a spring in Fig. 12. For the purposes of substantiative examination, reference character “52” in Fig. 12 is considered to be a typo. Based on Par. 0049 of the PGPUB, the spring 54 is located in between the fixed end cap 72 and the free end cap 73. Given this appears to be what is shown in Fig. 12, reference character “52” will be considered “54” for the purposes of substantiative examination.
Similarly, reference character “46” has been used to designate both a window section on frame 35 and a different feature on the structure comprising opening 60 in Fig. 8. For the purposes of substantiative examination, the reference character “46” used to identify the feature on the structure comprising opening 60 in Fig. 8 is considered to be a typo. Based on Pars. 0047-0048 of the PGPUB, opening 60 and roller guard 68 are features of support grid 56. Given this appears to be what is shown in Fig. 8, the structure comprising opening 60 is understood to be the support grid 56 and reference character “46” pointing to a feature on support grid 56 will be considered “68” (i.e., the roller guard) for the purposes of substantiative examination.
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 spring recited in claim 1, support grid recited in claim 3, and the roller guard recited in claim 4 must be shown 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 Objections
Claims 2-3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2, 3, and 5, line 1, “claim 1” should read “claim 1,” (emphasis added).
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 1, lines 14-15 recite “the actuator will rotate in a second direction when the actuator is disengaged” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the actuator is rotating when it is disengaged. For the purposes of substantiative examination and in light of Par. 0049 of the PGPUM, it’s presumed this is a typo and ‘disengaged’ should instead be ‘deenergized’.
Claim 1, lines 1-3 recite “an aperture for a vehicle providing an air flow path” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the ‘vehicle’ recited in line 3 is the same or different from the one recited in line 1. For the purposes of substantiative examination, each recitation of a ‘vehicle’ is are interpreted as referring to the same structure.
Claim 1, line 11 recites “the first roller and second roller rotate in first direction” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the ‘first direction’ recited in claim 11 is the same or different from the one recited in claim 10. For the purposes of substantiative examination, each reference to a ‘first direction’ is are interpreted as referring to the same structure.
Claim 1, line 14 recites “the first roller, second roller and the actuator” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the ‘second roller’ recited in claim 14 is the same or different from the one recited in claim 13. For the purposes of substantiative examination, each reference to a ‘second roller’ is are interpreted as referring to the same structure.
Claims 2-5 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from base claim 1.
Claim 5, line 6 recites “a tube connected extending between the fixed end cap and the free end cap” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the tube is connected to the fixed end cap and the free end cap, extends between the fixed end cap and the free end cap, or both. For the purposes of substantiative examination, the claim will be interpreted as if it recited “a tube
Amendments to the claims are kindly requested for clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
NOTE: Citations are to Uemura unless otherwise noted.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. (US6296562B1, hereafter Uemura) in view of Bruckner (US 20150183313 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uemura discloses an air flow metering device (Abstract, air passage switching device) for controlling the flow of air into a vehicle passage (Abstract, “air passage switching device, suitable for use for example in a vehicle air conditioning apparatus, for switching a flow of air among a plurality of air passages by moving a film door in one direction by a stepping motor and in another direction by the spring force of coil spring”) comprising:
a frame (Fig. 3, air conditioner case 1) with an aperture (Fig. 2, outlet port 6) for a vehicle providing an air flow path (Fig. 2 and Col. 5, lines 24-25, “an air inlet 2 opening in a side face of the end thereof nearer the front of the vehicle”);
a first roller (Fig. 2, driven shaft 17);
a second roller located opposite the aperture from the first roller (Fig. 2, driving shaft 18);
a single roll (Fig. 3, film door 20 and Col. 6, lines 29-31, “Here, the blowout mode switching film door 20, like the air-mixing film door 13, also consists of a resin film door having good flexibility”) having a covering section and a window section, wherein the covering section is connected to the first roller and the widow section is connected to the second roller (annotated Fig. A);
an actuator (Fig. 2, stepping motor 23) rotatably connected to the first roller, wherein when the actuator is rotated in a first direction (Fig. 2-3, forward direction, shown as ① in Fig. 2. See Col. 8, lines 65-Col. 9, line 1, “Movement of the blow out mode switching film door 20 in the direction 1 is carried out by a rotating force of the stepping motor 23 winding one end of the blow out mode switching film door 20 onto the second driving shaft 17”) the window covering section of the single roll is rolled onto the first roller as the first roller and second roller rotate in first direction, thereby opening the aperture (Col. 6, lines 50-68, “second driving shaft 17 is rotated by a stepping motor 23 (driving means) shown in FIG. 2. A plurality of openings 20a for air to pass through are formed in the blow out mode switching film door 20, as shown in FIG. 2, and by the second driving shaft 17 being rotated in forward and reverse directions and these openings 20a being stopped in required positions by the stepping motor 23 the outlet ports 5 through 7 can be opened and closed to switch (select) the blow out mode”);
a spring (Fig. 4, spring 29) connected to the second roller that biases the second roller to rotate in a second direction (Fig. 4; Col. 8, lines 47-53, “the coil spring 29 is forcibly wound up on the spring-holding shaft portion 28a of the guide bar 28 by one-way rotation of the second driven shaft 18. And when a force rotating the second driven shaft 18 in that direction is removed, the coil spring 29 unwinds under its own spring force and rotates the second driven shaft 18 in the other direction (the opposite direction)”) so that the first roller, second roller and the actuator will rotate in a second direction (Figs. 2-3, opposite direction, shown as ② in Fig. 2 and Col. 8, lines 47-53, opposite direction and Col. 9, lines 16-23, “the stepping motor 23 is rotated in the opposite direction to that mentioned above, the second driving shaft 17 is thus rotated in the opposite direction to before, and the end of the film door 20 is thereby unwound (let out) from the second driving shaft 17. When this happens, since the force in the winding-up direction that had hitherto been acting on the coil spring 29 decreases, the coil spring 29 unwinds under its own spring force.”) when the actuator is disengaged, thereby causing the fabric covering section to unwind from the first roller while the window section becomes wound onto the second roller thereby covering the aperture (Fig. 2 and Col. 9, lines 24-33, “As a result, because the second driven shaft 18 rotates in the opposite direction to before under the spring force of the coil spring 29 and the other end of the film door 20 is taken up on the second driven shaft 18, the film door 20 moves in the 2 direction and switches from the face mode side to the defroster mode side. At the time of this mode switch the film door take-up torque exerted by the stepping motor 23 becomes zero, as shown by 2 in FIG. 5, and consequently the rotation speed of the stepping motor 23 increases and the blow out mode switching time is shortened”. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the torque of stepping motor 23 is zero, it must necessarily be deenergized. See the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 above for more details about why and how this limitation is being interpreted).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
457
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Covering section)][AltContent: textbox (Border edges)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Window section)]
Fig. A: Annotated copy of Fig. 3 from Uemura showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
However, Uemura does not disclose a first roller located above the aperture;
a second roller located below the aperture; and
a single roll having a fabric covering section.
Bruckner discloses a device for regulating an air flow to a cooler device of a vehicle (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Bruckner further discloses it is know for a single roll (Par. 0017, roller blind element) to be made of fabric (Par. 0017, “the roller blind element to comprise a technical fabric and/or a sheeting, in particular a plastics sheeting, and/or a fiber composite material”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the single roll of Uemura to be made from fabric. Uemura discloses the claimed single roll except Uemura is silent regarding using a fabric material. Bruckner shows that a fabric single roll is an equivalent single roll known in the art. Therefore, because the two single rolls were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the resin material of the single roll of Uemura with the fabric material of the single roll of Bruckner. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely regulating air flow in a vehicle, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2143 B.
Furthermore, the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. In this regard, it’s noted that Bruckner discloses fabric is suitable for regulating air flow in a vehicle. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to construct the single roll of Uemura from fabric.
However, Uemura, as modified above, does not disclose a first roller located above the aperture; and
a second roller located below the aperture.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to move the first roller above the aperture and the second roller below the aperture, since it has been held that the configuration of the claimed element was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed rollers was significant. MPEP 2144.04 VI-C. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (first roller located above the aperture, first roller located below the aperture and second roller located below the aperture, second roller located above the aperture). One could have expected the rollers to perform substantially equally well, whether the first roller was located below the aperture and the second roller was located above the aperture or the rollers were located in their original positions.
NOTE: It’s the examiner’s position that a shaft under spring-tension returns to its previous position when an actuator driving the shaft is deenergized is well known in the art, as indicated by Par. 0017 of DoYoe et al. (US 20040084542 A1) referenced in the conclusion.
Regarding claim 2, Uemura discloses border edges of the window section (annotated Fig. A) of the single roller (Fig. 3, film door 20 and Col. 6, lines 29-31, as quoted above), wherein the border edges are connected to the second roller (Fig. 2, driving shaft 18).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. (US6296562B1, hereafter Uemura) and Bruckner (US 20150183313 A1) and further in view of Mildner (GB 2479044 A).
Regarding claim 3, Uemura, as modified above, discloses the air flow metering device of claim 1.
However, Uemura does not disclose a support grid having at least one vertical wall and at least one horizontal wall, wherein the support grid is connected to the frame and extends over the single roll when connected to the frame.
Mildner discloses a flow regulating device for a vehicle (Abstract) similar to the present invention and Mildner further discloses a support grid (Fig. 8, front lattice 42) having at least one vertical wall (Fig. 8, vertical walls of front lattice 42) and at least one horizontal wall (Fig. 8, horizontal walls of front lattice 42), wherein the support grid is connected to a frame (Fig. 1 and Pg. 15, lines 19-24, “The two lattices can be directly connected to each other subject to mounting the roller blind arrangement 20 in a mounting 50 arranged on the upper end portion of the front lattice 42 provided for this purpose.”) and extends over a single roll (Fig. 8, roller blind 36) when connected to the frame (Figs. 3 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Uemura to include the support grid as taught by Mildner in order to have a support grid having at least one vertical wall and at least one horizontal wall, wherein the support grid is connected to the frame and extends over the single roll when connected to the frame and thereby reduce pressure on the single roll (As suggested by Pg. 16, lines 7-10, “the roller blind that can be wound up…between two inter-corresponding lattice structures 42, 44 a deformation impairing the functionality of the roller blind web 36 can be largely prevented even upon occurrence of a substantial dynamic pressure on the roller blind 36”), which increases reliability and decrease maintenance costs.
Regarding claim 4, Uemura, as modified above, discloses the air flow metering device of claim 3, wherein the support grid (Mildner: Fig. 8, front lattice 42) has a roller guard (annotated Fig. B) that extends over the first roller (Uemura: Fig. 2, driven shaft 17. Note the roller guard covers winding shaft 34 of Mildner, therefore, Uemura, as modified above, reads on this limitation) and covers the fabric covering section (annotated Fig. A as modified by the roller blind element of Bruckner. See claim 1) of the single roll (Uemura: Fig. 3, film door 20) when the fabric covering section is rolled onto the first roller (Figs. 7-8, which shows the roller guard covers the roller blind 36 when it is rolled onto winding shaft 34 of Mildner. Therefore, Uemura, as modified above, reads on this limitation).
PNG
media_image3.png
527
531
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Roller guard)]
Fig. B: Annotated copy of Fig. 8 from Mildner showing location of prior art elements labeled with applicant’s terminology.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura et al. (US6296562B1, hereafter Uemura) and Bruckner (US 20150183313 A1) and further in view of Heinrich et al. (US 20070144690 A1, hereafter Heinrich).
Regarding claim 5, Uemura, as modified above, discloses the second roller (Fig. 2, driving shaft 18) further comprises:
a first end (Figs. 3-4, left end of driving shaft 18) connected to the frame (Fig. 3, air conditioner case 1, via guide bar 28);
a free end (Figs. 3-4, right end of driving shaft 18 and guide bar 28) rotatably connected to the frame (Col. 7, lines 47-51, “A small-diameter portion 18 b is formed on one end of the second driven shaft 18, and this small-diameter portion 18 b is rotatably supported in a bearing hole 27 in the air-conditioner case 1”);
a tube (Figs. 3-4, surface surrounding spring 29 which forms an inner channel or tube) connected extending between the fixed end and the free end (Figs. 3-4).
wherein the spring extends through a hollow portion of the tube (Figs. 3-4) and is fixedly connected at one end to the first end (Col. 8, lines 43-45, “one end portion 29a of the coil spring 29 is attached to the guide bar 28 fixed to the air-conditioner case 1”) and a second end of the spring connects and rotates with the free end (Col. 8, lines 43-53, “the other end portion 29b is attached to the second driven shaft 18, which is rotatable with respect to the air-conditioner case 1, the coil spring 29 is forcibly wound up on the spring-holding shaft portion 28a of the guide bar 28 by one-way rotation of the second driven shaft 18. And when a force rotating the second driven shaft 18 in that direction is removed, the coil spring 29 unwinds under its own spring force and rotates the second driven shaft 18 in the other direction (the opposite direction).”).
However, Uemura, as modified above, does not disclose a fixed end cap,
a free end cap, and
wherein the tube is fixed to and rotates with the free end cap and rotates about a portion of the fixed end cap.
Heinrich discloses a roller blind for a vehicle (Par. 0001) similar to the present invention and Heinrich further discloses it is known to have a fixed end cap (Fig. 3, cylindrical bearing piece 50, which comprises pin 59) connected to a frame (Fig. 2, guide rails 28 and claim 14, “The roller blind of claim 11 in which said holder (65) is connected to one of said guide rails (28)”) so there is no rotation relative to the frame (Par. 0041, “the anchoring pin 59 cannot rotate in the section 72” and Fig. 3, which shows section 72 is part of holder 65),
a free end cap (Fig. 3, end piece 34. Note this structure appears to be misidentified as ‘end piece 34’ at least based on a) Fig. 2, which shows end pieces 34, 35 are components of profile 23, not shaft 25, Fig. 3, shows shaft 25, not profile 23 and b) Par. 0025, which discloses “The pull-out profile 23 includes a middle piece 33 which has a fixed length and two endpieces 34, 35 that can move in a telescoping relation to the middle piece 33”. Instead, it appears ‘end piece 34’ in Fig. 3 should be labeled ‘stop piece 55’ at least based on Par. 0031, which states hook 57 and pin 56 are components of the ‘stop piece 55’ and Fig. 3 which shows these components on the structure labeled ‘end piece 34’) which is rotatable (Par. 0031, “stop piece 55, which is fixed for rotation with the wind-up shaft tube 48” and Par. 0030, “wind-up shaft tube 48 can rotate freely”), and
wherein a tube (Fig. 3, cylindrical tube 48) is fixed to and rotates with the free end cap (Par. 0031, “stop piece 55, which is fixed for rotation with the wind-up shaft tube 48”) and rotates about a portion of the fixed end cap (Par. 0030, “outer peripheral surface 51 of the bearing piece 50 fits in the wind-up shaft tube 48 so that the wind-up shaft tube 48 can rotate freely on the essentially cylindrical bearing piece 50”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Uemura with the fixed end cap, free end cap, and tube as taught by Heinrich in order to have a fixed end cap, a free end cap, and a tube that is fixed to and rotates with the free end cap and rotates about a portion of the fixed end cap and thereby make the device more reliable and efficient (As suggested by Par. 0006 of Heinrich: “a roller-blind arrangement in which assembly of the wind-up shaft is simplified, reliable and efficient”.
Further note that Uemura, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except both ends of the second roller are free to rotate, instead of one end of the roller being fixed to the frame. Heinrich shows that a roller with one end fixed to a frame is known in the art. Therefore, because the two rollers were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the roller of Uemura with the roller of Heinrich. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predicable result, namely pre-tensioning a roller by fixing one end of a spring and leaving the other end of the spring free to rotate, renders the claim obvious before the effective filing date of the invention. See MPEP 2143 B.
In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the fixed and free ends of Uemura removable, and therefore ‘caps’ under the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘fittings for closing the end of a tube’, since it has been held that making a claimed element separable was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed device was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 V-C. In this case, making the fixed and free ends removable would provide the predicable benefit of cheaper and/or easier maintenance of Uemura’s device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
DoYoe et al. (US 20040084542 A1) discloses a shaft under spring-tension returns to its previous position when an actuator driving the shaft is deenergized.
Mrusek et al. (US 20220281312 A1) discloses a support grid having at least one vertical wall and at least one horizontal wall, wherein the support grid is connected to the frame.
Shidara et a. (US 20200208925 A1) discloses an air flow metering device for controlling the flow of air into a vehicle passage comprising: a frame with an aperture for a vehicle providing an air flow path; a first roller located above the aperture; a second roller located below the aperture opposite the first roller; a single roll having a fabric covering section and a window section, wherein the fabric covering section is connected to the first roller and the widow section is connected to the second roller; an actuator rotatably connected to the first roller, wherein when the actuator is rotated in a first direction the window covering section of the single roll is rolled onto the first roller as the first roller and second roller rotate in first direction, thereby opening the aperture; a spring connected to the second roller that biases the second roller to rotate in a second direction so that the first roller, second roller and the actuator will rotate in a second direction, thereby causing the fabric covering section to unwind from the first roller while the window section becomes wound onto the second roller thereby covering the aperture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANN LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm ET. 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, Michael Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights