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
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 23 represents the second mounting part 2821 as an arrow coming out of the assembly and pointing at the number 2821. It is not clear what 2821 represents from the figure. 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
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites a second sealing ring without reciting a first sealing ring. Examiner suggests amending claim 17 to depend from claim 5, which recites a first sealing ring. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the driving mechanism and the dehumidifying assembly in claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Bae (US 2015/0020398).
As for claim 1, Bae shows a laundry treating device (abstract), comprising: an inner tub [0030], configured to accommodate laundry to be treated (abstract); and a drying module assembly, configured to dry the laundry ([0030], drum), wherein the drying module assembly comprises: a moisture-absorbing passage (through 5, fig. 1), comprising a first air inlet and a first air outlet, wherein the first air inlet and the first air outlet are in communication with the inner tub respectively (5, fig. 1, inlet on right side, outlet on the left side, receiving air from the inner tub); a circulating fan, disposed inside the moisture-absorbing passage and configured to form a circulating airflow inside the inner tub and the moisture-absorbing passage (30, fig. 1); a regenerating passage (through 5, fig. 1); a regenerating fan, disposed inside the regenerating passage and configured to form a dehumidifying airflow inside the regenerating passage (61, fig. 1); a moisture-absorbing member, disposed on the moisture-absorbing passage and the regenerating passage (51, 52, fig. 1), the circulating airflow and the dehumidifying airflow both flowing through the moisture-absorbing member (51, 52, fig. 1); and a driving mechanism, configured to move the moisture-absorbing member relative to the moisture-absorbing passage and the regenerating passage (55, fig. 2, [0087]); wherein the moisture-absorbing member is configured to absorb moisture in the circulating airflow in the process of moving relative to the moisture-absorbing passage and the regenerating passage (51, fig. 1, [0095]), and discharge the moisture absorbed through the dehumidifying airflow (52, fig. 1, [0095]); wherein the drying module assembly further comprises a dehumidifying assembly, and the dehumidifying assembly is disposed on the regenerating passage (61, 6, fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katsumi (CN101277748A).
As for claim 2, Bae discloses the claimed invention except for the moisture-absorbing member is provided with a moisture absorbent, the moisture absorbent comprises at least one of zeolite, alkali metal aluminosilicate, lithium chloride, silica gel, modified silica gel or activated alumina; and the drying module assembly further comprises a dehumidifying assembly, the dehumidifying assembly is disposed on the regenerating passage and configured to desorb moisture absorbed by the moisture absorbent, and the dehumidifying assembly comprising at least one of a heating assembly, an ultrasonic generator or a microwave generator. Katsumi teaches the moisture-absorbing member is provided with a moisture absorbent, the moisture absorbent comprises at least one of zeolite, alkali metal aluminosilicate, lithium chloride, silica gel, modified silica gel or activated alumina; and the drying module assembly further comprises a dehumidifying assembly, the dehumidifying assembly is disposed on the regenerating passage and configured to desorb moisture absorbed by the moisture absorbent, and the dehumidifying assembly comprising at least one of a heating assembly, an ultrasonic generator or a microwave generator (p. 6, bottom half of page) in order to use readily available desiccants. Bae would benefit equally from using readily available desiccants. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Bae with the moisture-absorbing member is provided with a moisture absorbent, the moisture absorbent comprises at least one of zeolite, alkali metal aluminosilicate, lithium chloride, silica gel, modified silica gel or activated alumina; and the drying module assembly further comprises a dehumidifying assembly, the dehumidifying assembly is disposed on the regenerating passage and configured to desorb moisture absorbed by the moisture absorbent, and the dehumidifying assembly comprising at least one of a heating assembly, an ultrasonic generator or a microwave generator as taught by Katsumi in order to use readily available desiccants.
As for claim 3, Bae discloses the claimed invention except for the moisture-absorbing member comprises a moisture-absorbing rotary plate; the driving mechanism is configured to drive cause the moisture-absorbing rotary plate to rotate relative to the moisture-absorbing passage and the regenerating passage; the moisture-absorbing rotary plate comprises a moisture-absorbing region and a regenerating region, wherein the moisture-absorbing region is a region on the moisture-absorbing rotary plate through which the circulating airflow flows, and the regenerating region is a region on the moisture-absorbing rotary plate through which the dehumidifying airflow flows; and the drying module assembly further comprises a heating assembly disposed on the regenerating passage and covering the regenerating region. Katsumi teaches a moisture-absorbing rotary plate (47, fig. 6); the driving mechanism is configured to drive cause the moisture-absorbing rotary plate to rotate relative to the moisture-absorbing passage and the regenerating passage (56, fig. 6); the moisture-absorbing rotary plate comprises a moisture-absorbing region and a regenerating region, wherein the moisture-absorbing region is a region on the moisture-absorbing rotary plate through which the circulating airflow flows, and the regenerating region is a region on the moisture-absorbing rotary plate through which the dehumidifying airflow flows (abstract); and the drying module assembly further comprises a heating assembly disposed on the regenerating passage and covering the regenerating region (14, fig. 9) in order to provide an alternative means of separating water from an airflow. Bae would benefit equally from providing an alternative means of separating water from an airflow. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Bae with the moisture-absorbing member comprises a moisture-absorbing rotary plate; the driving mechanism is configured to drive cause the moisture-absorbing rotary plate to rotate relative to the moisture-absorbing passage and the regenerating passage; the moisture-absorbing rotary plate comprises a moisture-absorbing region and a regenerating region, wherein the moisture-absorbing region is a region on the moisture-absorbing rotary plate through which the circulating airflow flows, and the regenerating region is a region on the moisture-absorbing rotary plate through which the dehumidifying airflow flows; and the drying module assembly further comprises a heating assembly disposed on the regenerating passage and covering the regenerating region as taught by Katsumi in order to provide an alternative means of separating water from an airflow.
As for claim 10, Bae discloses the claimed invention except for the moisture-absorbing rotary plate further comprises a cooling region; and the cooling region is located downstream of the regenerating region and upstream of the moisture-absorbing region along a rotation direction of the moisture-absorbing rotary plate. Katsumi teaches the moisture-absorbing rotary plate further comprises a cooling region (13, p. 9, top of page); and the cooling region is located downstream of the regenerating region and upstream of the moisture-absorbing region along a rotation direction of the moisture-absorbing rotary plate (12, 13, 16, fig. 4) in order to further separate water from a flow of air. Bae would benefit equally from further separating water from the flow of air. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Bae with the moisture-absorbing rotary plate further comprises a cooling region; and the cooling region is located downstream of the regenerating region and upstream of the moisture-absorbing region along a rotation direction of the moisture-absorbing rotary plate as taught by Katsumi in order to further separate water from a flow of air.
As for claim 18 Bae discloses the claimed invention except for the heating assembly comprises a sector-shaped housing, and a mesh plate and a heating pipe which are disposed in the sector-shaped housing, the heating pipe being disposed below the mesh plate, and the mesh plate comprising a plurality of air holes; and an air inlet is defined in a circumferential side or a radius side of the sector-shaped housing, and the dehumidifying airflow flows through the air inlet, the plurality of air holes in the mesh plate and the heating pipe in sequence, and to the regenerating region. Katsumi teaches the heating assembly comprises a sector-shaped housing (81, fig. 9), the heating pipe being disposed below the mesh plate (14, 85, fig. 9, depending on orientation of the unit) and a mesh plate and a heating pipe which are disposed in the sector-shaped housing (85, fig. 9), and the mesh plate comprising a plurality of air holes (86, fig. 9); and an air inlet is defined in a circumferential side or a radius side of the sector-shaped housing (72, fig. 9), and the dehumidifying airflow flows through the air inlet, the plurality of air holes in the mesh plate and the heating pipe in sequence, and to the regenerating region (84, fig. 9) in order to aid in regeneration of the drying member. Bae would benefit equally from aiding. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Bae with the heating assembly comprises a sector-shaped housing, and a mesh plate and a heating pipe which are disposed in the sector-shaped housing, the heating pipe being disposed below the mesh plate, and the mesh plate comprising a plurality of air holes; and an air inlet is defined in a circumferential side or a radius side of the sector-shaped housing, and the dehumidifying airflow flows through the air inlet, the plurality of air holes in the mesh plate and the heating pipe in sequence, and to the regenerating region as taught by Katsumi in order to aid in regeneration of the drying member.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Katsumi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Hung (US 2018/0306454).
As for claim 4, Bae discloses the claimed invention except for the moisture-absorbing member further comprises an upper peripheral clamping housing, a lower peripheral clamping housing and a circumferential shock absorber, wherein the circumferential shock absorber is disposed on an outer circumference of the moisture-absorbing rotary plate or an inner circumference of the housing, and the moisture-absorbing rotary plate and the circumferential shock absorber are clamped and fixed by the upper peripheral clamping housing and the lower peripheral clamping housing. Hung teaches the moisture-absorbing member further comprises an upper peripheral clamping housing (25, fig. 2, [0027]), a lower peripheral clamping housing (25, fig. 2, [0027]) and a circumferential shock absorber (27, fig. 2, [0027]), wherein the circumferential shock absorber is disposed on an outer circumference of the moisture-absorbing rotary plate or an inner circumference of the housing, and the moisture-absorbing rotary plate and the circumferential shock absorber are clamped and fixed by the upper peripheral clamping housing and the lower peripheral clamping housing (fig. 2, [0027]) in order to provide insulation and avoid heat leakage. Bae would benefit equally from providing insulation and avoid heat leakage. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Bae with the moisture-absorbing member further comprises an upper peripheral clamping housing, a lower peripheral clamping housing and a circumferential shock absorber, wherein the circumferential shock absorber is disposed on an outer circumference of the moisture-absorbing rotary plate or an inner circumference of the housing, and the moisture-absorbing rotary plate and the circumferential shock absorber are clamped and fixed by the upper peripheral clamping housing and the lower peripheral clamping housing as taught by Hung in order to provide insulation and avoid heat leakage.
As for claim 6, Bae discloses the claimed invention except for wherein drive teeth are disposed on an outer circumference of the upper peripheral clamping housing or an outer circumference of the lower peripheral clamping housing; and the driving mechanism is a drive motor, a gear is disposed on an output end of the drive motor, and the gear is meshed with the drive teeth to drive cause the moisture-absorbing member to rotate. Katsumi teaches wherein drive teeth are disposed on an outer circumference of the upper peripheral clamping housing or an outer circumference of the lower peripheral clamping housing; and the driving mechanism is a drive motor, a gear is disposed on an output end of the drive motor, and the gear is meshed with the drive teeth to drive cause the moisture-absorbing member to rotate (57, fig. 6) in order to efficiently rotate the desiccant through absorption and regenerating phases. Bae would benefit equally from efficiently rotating the desiccant through absorption and regenerating phases. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Bae with drive teeth are disposed on an outer circumference of the upper peripheral clamping housing or an outer circumference of the lower peripheral clamping housing; and the driving mechanism is a drive motor, a gear is disposed on an output end of the drive motor, and the gear is meshed with the drive teeth to drive cause the moisture-absorbing member to rotate as taught by Katsumi in order to efficiently rotate the desiccant through absorption and regenerating phases.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Katsumi in view of Hung as applied to claim 4 above and further in view of Yu (US 2020/0355432).
The combination of Bae and Katsumi discloses or teaches the claimed invention except for a first sealing ring is disposed on an outer circumference of a junction between the upper peripheral clamping housing and the lower peripheral clamping housing. Yu teaches a first sealing ring is disposed on an outer circumference of a junction between the upper peripheral clamping housing and the lower peripheral clamping housing (1140, fig. 5, [0069], claim 9) in order to isolate the desiccant wheel from the surrounding structure. The combination of Bae and Katsumi would benefit equally from isolating the desiccant wheel from the surrounding structure. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by the combination of Bae and Katsumi with a first sealing ring is disposed on an outer circumference of a junction between the upper peripheral clamping housing and the lower peripheral clamping housing as taught by Yu in order to isolate the desiccant wheel from the surrounding structure.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bae in view of Katsumi as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Carlson (US 2018/0372347) in view of Cromer (US 6,094,835).
Bae discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing an upper housing, the heating assembly is disposed on the upper housing. Katsumi teaches an upper housing, the heating assembly is disposed on the upper housing (16, fig. 4, illustrates upper housing and heating assembly disposed on it) in order to aid in regeneration of the drying member. Bae would benefit equally from aiding in regeneration of the drying member. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Bae with an upper housing, the heating assembly is disposed on the upper housing as taught by Katsumi in order to aid in regeneration of the drying member.
The combination of Bae and Katsumi discloses the claimed invention except for a heat shield ring. Carlson teaches a heat shield ring [0058] in order to shield internal components from the heating assembly. The combination of Bae and Katsumi would benefit equally from shielding internal components from the heating assembly. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Bae and Katsumi with a heat shield ring as taught by Carlson in order to shield internal components from the heating assembly.
The combination of Bae and Katsumi discloses the claimed invention except for a second sealing ring are disposed between the heating assembly and the upper housing. Cromer teaches a second sealing ring are disposed between the heating assembly and the upper housing (claim 8) in order to properly seal gases inside the drying member. The combination of Bae and Katsumi would benefit equally from properly sealing gases inside the drying member. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Bae and Katsumi with a second sealing ring are disposed between the heating assembly and the upper housing as taught by Cromer in order to properly seal gases inside the drying member.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 11-16, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 7 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose a first roller is disposed on an inner sidewall of the first mounting part; and an auxiliary rotating ring is disposed on the outer circumference of the upper peripheral clamping housing or the outer circumference of the lower peripheral clamping housing, and the auxiliary rotating ring is in rolling fit with the first roller with all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4 and 6. The closest prior art is found in Yoho (US 5,937,667) which teaches a roller to guide a desiccant wheel. But it does not include an auxiliary rotating ring or many of the other limitations expressed in claims 1, 3, 4 and 6.
Claim 11 includes allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the upper housing is provided with a second mounting part for mounting the moisture-absorbing member, and the moisture-absorbing member is rotatably connected inside a space defined by the first mounting part and the second mounting part. The closest prior art is found in Katsumi which teaches in figs. 4 and 5 similar features to claim 11 but does not include an upper housing which provides a sealed environment for the entire drying member
Claims 19 and 20 include allowable subject matter because altering Katsumi to include the diameters of the plurality of air holes decrease along a flow direction of the dehumidifying airflow or the heating pipe is offset towards a direction of a center of the sector-shaped housing relative to the plurality of air holes would destroy the Katsumi reference and thus would not be obvious to combine with Katsumi.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights