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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed 06/24/2026 have been entered. The amendments overcome most of the 112b rejections previously provided.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art Hellmold fail to read to the claimed invention for the following reasons:
A.1: the structure of Hellmold is inherently resistive. The examiner finds this argument to be nonpersuasive. First, said measurement is determined to be functional language. The applicant points to no structural difference between the prior art and the instant application, in that both the art and instant application comprise sensing lines configured to measure a value of wetness from human waste, where the sensing lines connect to a sensor and a film layer. Further, as previously detailed the system of Hellmold is configured to measure capacitance (para. 0016). Therefore, as understood by the examiner, Hellmold teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims. Per MPEP section 2114 "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
A.2: the capacitive characterization of the prior art is misleading, as the detection mechanism remains resistance not capacitive. The examiner finds the argument non persuasive for reasons detailed under the response to A.1.
A.3: the insulating layer of the prior art is waterproof barrier, not a dielectric layer for capacitive sensing. The examiner notes that this argument is found to be nonpersuasive as the dielectric layer is not interpreted to be the insulating layer, rather thickness of the layer separating the defined sensing surface and defined contact surface. In the rejection, the insulating layer (200) was interpreted as the short-circuit protection mechanism comprising the waterproof covering layer.
A.4: Hellmold lacks the claimed sensing surface and electrolytic capacitance detection. Applicant argues that the sensing surface is not isolated from the dielectric layer. The examiner finds this argument non persuasive per the previous rejection provided. “The examiner notes … the thickness between the sensing surface and the contact surface is interpreted as the dielectric layer. Thus, one outer surface of the dielectric layer forms the contact surface, and the dielectric layer insulates, as in separates through a material, the sensing and contact surfaces”
A.5: No electrolytic capacitor can be formed in Hellmold. As detailed under the response to A.1, this argument is found to be not persuasive.
B: Additional structural differences. The examiner notes that the head to tail and through type pockets, invisible opening, and redundant pocket were all previously rejected.
C: The examiner’s reliance on Circuit Gates and Builtin for anticipation is legally erroneous. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The two NPLs were brought in as evidentiary references used for evidencing know mathematical or science properties, not as teaching references to apply structure to the device of Hellmold.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim18-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 requires a head to tail type built-in pocket and claim 17 requires a through type built-in pocket. However, claim 18 -21 require both the built-in type pocket as well as an invisible opening for said built in pocket. From the examiner’s understanding the invisible opening, as detailed by the applicant specification (page 24, page 28), is only described to be formed by a/the built- in pocket, not specifically the head to tail type or through type pocket. It is unclear, based on the applicant’s written description, if the invisible opening is inherent to all built-in pockets, and thus the through type and head to tail type would comprise an invisible opening as well. Claim 22 and 23 depends from claim 20 and 21 and thus are rejected, however claim 22 and 23 (apart from the dependency) is not further rejected under 112a. The examiner takes not that a head to tail/through type pocket would comprise an invisible opening and thus the claimed will be examined as such.
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.
Claim18-23 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.
Claims 18-21 requires “an invisible opening”. It is unclear what is meant by the term invisible. The examiner notes that any opening which would not be readily seen while in use is interpreted to be an invisible opening. The examiner notes that as the invisible opening is a feature of the built-in pocket, any built-in in pocket, for purpose of examination, would comprise an invisible opening.
Claims 18-21 further require “a sensor”. The examiner notes that claim 17 details that the built-in pocket is adapted to insert a sensor. Therefore, it is unclear if claims 18-21 are referring to another sensor, or a broadly stating that the opening is configured for inserting a sensor. As claim 17 positively claims a sensor, it is interpreted that structure of claims 18-21 are configured for inserting the sensor.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hellmold et al. US 2019/0167490, hereafter Hellmold.
Regarding Claim 1, Hellmold discloses a smart absorbent article based on a capacitive sensing film and a built-in pocket (abstract), comprising a disposable absorbent article (para. 0053), a capacitive sensing film (substrate (1) comprising sensing lines (101) being a film (para. 0085)), a built-in pocket (16) and a short-circuit protection mechanism (insulating layer (200) provides a barrier to liquid contacting the conductive tracks per para. 0131), the disposable absorbent article comprises a topsheet (para. 0147), an absorbent layer (para. 0147) and a backsheet (para. 0147), and the sensing film comprises a contact surface (the upper side of substate (1) where the sensing lines are located), a sensing surface (the opposite [bottom] side of substrate (1), a dielectric layer (thickness between the defined contact surface and sensing surface) and at least two sensing lines (where sensor tracks (101) further comprise side tracks [7,8] and central track [9]), the outer surface of the dielectric layer constitutes the sensing surface, the dielectric layer separates and insulates the sensing lines and the sensing surface. The examiner notes that as detailed under the same rejection the thickness between the sensing surface and the contact surface is interpreted as the dielectric layer. Thus, one outer surface of the dielectric layer forms the contact surface, and the dielectric layer insulates, as in separates through a material, the sensing and contact surfaces. Hellmold further discloses when the sensing surface is soaked by a liquid containing electrolyte (urine per para. 0147).
Hellmold further discloses that the built-in pocket is adapted to insert a sensor (para. 0099, where the pocket is used to insert the clip-on module (103) where said module has exposed conductive terminals (33), a processor, and a motion sensor (para. 0152), and where the processor calculates information of the system based on information from the motion sensor (para. 0152) receives and processors data from the sensing lines [para. 0188] (interpreted to be through the terminals as this is the connection point). Therefore, it is interpreted that the pocket comprises a sensor inserted into it, where said sensors are incorporated into the data processing module. As detailed above under the same paragraph the module comprises terminal for contact the sensor lines and thus the contact surface facilitates face-to-face contact and electrical connection between the sensor and the sensing lines, as claimed. Hellmold further discloses the short-circuit protection mechanism is adapted to protect the sensing lines from moisture inside and outside the disposable absorbent article (insulating layer (200) provides a barrier to liquid contacting the conductive tracks per para. 0131, as detailed under the same rejection).
Hellmold further discloses wherein at least part of the sensing lines is located within the contact surface (see figure 2b) and includes exposed part (para. 0131, 0140, where the insulating layer covers tracks 4,7,8 but leaves tracks 9 exposed, where tracks 9 extend from side tracks, see claim 4 of Hellmold), the short-circuit protection mechanism comprises a waterproof covering layer which covers the contact surface (para. 0131 where insulating layer (200) previously interpreted to be the protection mechanism is impermeable), and a separable part between the contact surface and the waterproof covering layer constitutes the built-in pocket (para. 0097 where the pocket is formed between the first surface and the insulating layer, and thus the portion in which the pocket is located is located is interpreted to be the separable part, see also figure 17), the sensing lines can realize the wetness detection function of the absorbent article through the dielectric layer by means of electrolytic capacitance (para. 0097, where the device comprises a data processing module connected with sensing lines and where said processing module measures capacitance, see also para. 0156;
The examiner notes that as previously detailed and the film comprises a sensing film (see rejection above) with a head-and-tail built-in pocket (see figure 2b), the sensing film comprises a plastic film substrate (and thus the dielectric layer per the amendments filed 06/24/26 as this is formed by the sensing film) (see rejection above, film per para. 0085), the sensing lines are arranged on one surface of the plastic film substrate (See rejection above), the waterproof covering layer is covered on the sensing lines (see rejection above), the waterproof covering layer and the plastic film substrate include a mutually bonded part in the middle section and constitute a sensing area para. 0097 where the pocket is formed between the first surface and the insulating layer, where the pocket receives the sensor), and include a mutually separable part at both ends of the head and tail and constitute the built-in pocket (see figure 2b where the waterproof layer is seen to be separated from the sensing area and is bonded on at the pocket [where data processing device [103] is located], thus it is interpreted to have a separable part at both end of the head and tail of the pocket) the outer surface of the plastic film substrate or the waterproof covering layer is oriented towards the absorbent layer (claim 17 of Hellmold, where the absorbent is interposed between the pocket and the user’s skin, where the pocket is formed from the waterproof layer) and it is thus interpreted that the outer surface of the waterproof layer is oriented toward the absorbent. Further, the absorbent is sandwiched between the topsheet and backsheet, where the backsheet comprises the substrate, and thus it is also interpreted that the outer layer of the substrate is oriented toward the absorbent (see claim 14 of Hellmold).
Regarding Claim 17, Hellmold discloses a smart absorbent article based on a capacitive sensing film and a built-in pocket (abstract), comprising a disposable absorbent article (para. 0053), a capacitive sensing film (substrate (1) comprising sensing lines (101) being a film (para. 0085)), a built-in pocket (16) and a short-circuit protection mechanism (insulating layer (200) provides a barrier to liquid contacting the conductive tracks per para. 0131), the disposable absorbent article comprises a topsheet (para. 0147), an absorbent layer (para. 0147) and a backsheet (para. 0147), and the sensing film comprises a contact surface (the upper side of substate (1) where the sensing lines are located), a sensing surface (the opposite [bottom] side of substrate (1), a dielectric layer (thickness between the defined contact surface and sensing surface) and at least two sensing lines (where sensor tracks (101) further comprise side tracks [7,8] and central track [9]), the outer surface of the dielectric layer constitutes the sensing surface, the dielectric layer separates and insulates the sensing lines and the sensing surface. The examiner notes that as detailed under the same rejection the thickness between the sensing surface and the contact surface is interpreted as the dielectric layer. Thus, one outer surface of the dielectric layer forms the contact surface, and the dielectric layer insulates, as in separates through a material, the sensing and contact surfaces. Hellmold further discloses when the sensing surface is soaked by a liquid containing electrolyte (urine per para. 0147).
Hellmold further discloses that the built-in pocket is adapted to insert a sensor (para. 0099, where the pocket is used to insert the clip-on module (103) where said module has exposed conductive terminals (33), a processor, and a motion sensor (para. 0152), and where the processor calculates information of the system based on information from the motion sensor (para. 0152) receives and processors data from the sensing lines [para. 0188] (interpreted to be through the terminals as this is the connection point). Therefore, it is interpreted that the pocket comprises a sensor inserted into it, where said sensors are incorporated into the data processing module. As detailed above under the same paragraph the module comprises terminal for contact the sensor lines and thus the contact surface facilitates face-to-face contact and electrical connection between the sensor and the sensing lines, as claimed. Hellmold further discloses the short-circuit protection mechanism is adapted to protect the sensing lines from moisture inside and outside the disposable absorbent article (insulating layer (200) provides a barrier to liquid contacting the conductive tracks per para. 0131, as detailed under the same rejection).
Hellmold further discloses wherein at least part of the sensing lines is located within the contact surface (see figure 2b) and includes exposed part (para. 0131, 0140, where the insulating layer covers tracks 4,7,8 but leaves tracks 9 exposed, where tracks 9 extend from side tracks, see claim 4 of Hellmold), the short-circuit protection mechanism comprises a waterproof covering layer which covers the contact surface (para. 0131 where insulating layer (200) previously interpreted to be the protection mechanism is impermeable), and a separable part between the contact surface and the waterproof covering layer constitutes the built-in pocket (para. 0097 where the pocket is formed between the first surface and the insulating layer, and thus the portion in which the pocket is located is located is interpreted to be the separable part, see also figure 17), the sensing lines can realize the wetness detection function of the absorbent article through the dielectric layer by means of electrolytic capacitance (para. 0097, where the device comprises a data processing module connected with sensing lines and where said processing module measures capacitance, see also para. 0156;
Hellmold further teaches the capacitive sensing film comprises a sensing film (see rejection above) with a through-type built-in pocket (figure 2b), the sensing film comprises a plastic film substrate (and thus the dielectric layer per the amendments filed 06/24/26 as this is formed by the sensing film), the sensing lines are arranged on one surface of the plastic film substrate and constitutes the contact surface (See rejection above), the other surface of the plastic film substrate constitutes the sensing surface (see rejection above), the plastic film substrate constitutes the dielectric layer (see rejection above), the waterproof covering layer is covered on the contact surface (see rejection above), the edge of both sides of the waterproof covering layer and the plastic film substrate includes a part bonded to each other and constitutes a boundary preventing liquid penetration into (see rejection above, where said layer provides a barrier to liquid contacting the conductive tracks per para. 0131) a hollow port is further included between the waterproof covering layer and the plastic film substrate and constitutes the through-type built-in pocket (where said pocket is located between said layers are detailed above, and the waterproof layer comprises a slit (15) creating an opening into the pocket. As the pocket is an open space between the layers, where entry is achieved through a slit, it is interpreted to be a hollow port.
Regarding Claim 18, Hellmold discloses the smart absorbent article according to claim 1, wherein the sandwich at the front edge of the disposable absorbent article comprises an invisible opening, which leads to the built-in pocket for inserting a sensor to achieve the wetness detection function (slit [15] for inserting the defined sensor into the pocket, and per para. 0097 where the pocket is formed between the first surface and the insulating layer, where the pocket receives the sensor). Per the 112b rejection above as the pocket is a built-in pocket for receiving a sensor and the slit is only interacted with to place the sensor within and is located on the interior of the article, it is interpreted to be an invisible opening.
Regarding Claim 19, Hellmold discloses the smart absorbent article according to claim 17, wherein the sandwich at the front edge of the disposable absorbent article comprises an invisible opening, which leads to the built-in pocket for inserting a sensor to achieve the wetness detection function (slit [15] for inserting the defined sensor into the pocket, and per para. 0097 where the pocket is formed between the first surface and the insulating layer, where the pocket receives the sensor). Per the 112b rejection above as the pocket is a built-in pocket for receiving a sensor and the slit is only interacted with to place the sensor within and is located on the interior of the article, it is interpreted to be an invisible opening.
Regarding Claim 20, Hellmold discloses The smart absorbent article according to claim 18,wherein the sandwich at the front edge of the disposable absorbent article and the back-end edge of the disposable absorbent article comprises an invisible opening, each leading to a built-in pocket (slit [15] for inserting the defined sensor into the pocket, and per para. 0097 where the pocket is formed between the first surface and the insulating layer, where the pocket receives the sensor, where both sealed “Sandwich” edges form the pocket as detailed under the rejection of claim 1). Per the 112b rejection above as the pocket is a built-in pocket for receiving a sensor and the slit is only interacted with to place the sensor within and is located on the interior of the article, it is interpreted to be an invisible opening.
Hellmold further discloses wherein the built-in pocket located at the front edge constitutes a functional pocket for inserting a sensor to achieve the wetness detection function (para. 0097), the built-in pocket located at the edge of the back end constitutes a redundant pocket to provide error redundancy for the positioning cut-off during the production of the smart absorbent article (where the space between the inserted defined sensing device and sensing lines is interpreted as the redundant pocket (see figure 2b where there is an empty space [redundant pocket] between 101 and 103).
Regarding Claim 21, Hellmold discloses The smart absorbent article according to claim 19,wherein the sandwich at the front edge of the disposable absorbent article and the back-end edge of the disposable absorbent article comprises an invisible opening, each leading to a built-in pocket (slit [15] for inserting the defined sensor into the pocket, and per para. 0097 where the pocket is formed between the first surface and the insulating layer, where the pocket receives the sensor, where both sealed “Sandwich” edges form the pocket as detailed under the rejection of claim 1). Per the 112b rejection above as the pocket is a built-in pocket for receiving a sensor and the slit is only interacted with to place the sensor within and is located on the interior of the article, it is interpreted to be an invisible opening.
Hellmold further discloses wherein the built-in pocket located at the front edge constitutes a functional pocket for inserting a sensor to achieve the wetness detection function (para. 0097), the built-in pocket located at the edge of the back end constitutes a redundant pocket to provide error redundancy for the positioning cut-off during the production of the smart absorbent article (where the space between the inserted defined sensing device and sensing lines is interpreted as the redundant pocket (see figure 2b where there is an empty space [redundant pocket] between 101 and 103).
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 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.
Claim(s) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellmold.
Regarding Claim 22, Hellmold discloses the smart absorbent article according to claim 20, wherein the disposable absorbent article comprises a diaper, an insertion pad, a sanitary napkin, a maternal towel or an urine pad (Abstract, para. 0053), the topsheet comprises a hydrophilic non-woven fabric (para. 0088), the absorbent layer comprises polymer absorbent material (para. 0054), the backsheet comprises a breathable or impermeable PE film (para. 0060), the sensing lines comprise ink lines printed with conductive ink (para. 0130), and the waterproof covering layer comprises a plastic film (para. 0132) and the electrolyte containing liquid comprises urine (per para. 0147).
The examiner notes that while substrate may be a plastic film (para. 0110, where the substrate may be a polymer film), para. 0110 does not specifically disclose that the film comprises a PE, PP, CPP, BOPP or PET film. However, per para. 0132, the substrate suitably comprises the insulating layer, defined as the waterproof layer per the rejection of claim 1, where said insulating layer is a substrate comprising a polyethylene film. Therefore, as Hellmold teaches that polyethylene film is a suitable substrate material for use in the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use polyethylene as the film material of the substrate housing the sensing lines.
Regarding Claim 23, Hellmold discloses the smart absorbent article according to claim 21, wherein the disposable absorbent article comprises a diaper, an insertion pad, a sanitary napkin, a maternal towel or an urine pad (Abstract, para. 0053), the topsheet comprises a hydrophilic non-woven fabric (para. 0088), the absorbent layer comprises polymer absorbent material (para. 0054), the backsheet comprises a breathable or impermeable PE film (para. 0060), the sensing lines comprise ink lines printed with conductive ink (para. 0130), and the waterproof covering layer comprises a plastic film (para. 0132) and the electrolyte containing liquid comprises urine (per para. 0147).
The examiner notes that while substrate may be a plastic film (para. 0110, where the substrate may be a polymer film), para. 0110 does not specifically disclose that the film comprises a PE, PP, CPP, BOPP or PET film. However, per para. 0132, the substrate suitably comprises the insulating layer, defined as the waterproof layer per the rejection of claim 1, where said insulating layer is a substrate comprising a polyethylene film. Therefore, as Hellmold teaches that polyethylene film is a suitable substrate material for use in the device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use polyethylene as the film material of the substrate housing the sensing lines.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 EST.
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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at 571-270-5879. 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights