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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1, “A purge system comprising:” should be amended to –A purge system, comprising:--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (US 20170133254 A1) in view of Fosnight (US 5988233 A) in further view of Kaise (US 20130213442 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
Murata discloses a purge system (1, Figure 1), comprising:
a plurality of placing sections (31, Figure 4, the placing unit is the placing section);
a plurality of nozzles each configured to feed purge gas to a container (F, Figure 4) at each of the placing sections (Paragraph [0035], there are a plurality of nozzles located at the end of the supply pipe to fill the containers with purge gas);
a main pipe (41, Figure 4) through which purge gas flows;
a feed controller (43, Figure 4, the mass flow controller is the feed controller) connected to the main pipe (41, Figure 4) and configured to control a flow rate or a pressure of the purge gas flowing through the main pipe (Paragraph [0034], the feed controller controls the flow rate through the main pipe);
a plurality of feed paths (33, Figure 4, the supply pipes are the plurality of feed paths) each provided between a respective one of the plurality of placing sections (31, Figure 4)and the main pipe (41, Figure 4), the plurality of feed paths (33, Figure 4) each including at least one feed tube, all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles (Figure 4 and Paragraphs [0035-0036], the at least one feed tube is also the feed path that is connected to the nozzle);
at least one open/close valve (39, Figure 4) correspondingly provided to each of the placing sections (31, Figure 4) and configured to switch flow of the purge gas in the feed paths (Paragraphs [0051] and [0055], the open/close valves control the flow of purge gas in the feed paths); and
a controller (150, Figure 4) configured to control an open/close state (Paragraph [0051]) of the at least one open/close valve (39, Figure 4) and control the feed controller (43, Figure 4) based on open/close states of all the open/close valves provided to the main pipe (Paragraphs [0055-0056], the controller controls the feed controller based on how many open/close valves are opened and how many containers are on the placing sections);
wherein the controller (150, Figure 4) is further configured to adjust the flow rate of the purge gas supplied to the plurality of nozzles at each of the placing sections (31, Figure 4) to a selected one among multiple predefined supply flow rates (Paragraphs [0055-0056], the flow rate is adjusted to a predefined supply flow rate that is calculated based on the target supply rate multiplied by the number of storage containers).
Murata does not disclose:
the plurality of feed paths each including at least one feed tube, all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles;
a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve; and
wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the flow rate of the purge gas supplied to the plurality of nozzles at each of the placing sections to a selected one among multiple predefined supply flow rates.
Fosnight teaches a purge system, comprising:
the of feed path (23, Figure 5, the gas supply line is the feed path and feed tube) each including at least one feed tube (See Annotated Figure 5 below, each of the feed path contains its own feed tube);
a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve (Column 12, Lines 24-31 and 39-40, the controller controls the state of the at least one open/close valve (78 and 80)); and
wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the flow rate of the purge gas supplied to the container at the placing section (20, Figure 5, the support surface is the placing section) to a selected one among multiple predefined supply flow rates (Column 12, Lines 35-62, the controller adjusts the flow rate of the purge gas to a selected flow rate based on which path containing an orifice the purge gas flows through).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata to include the feed paths each including at least one feed tube, a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve, and the controller is further configured to adjust the flow rate of the purge gas supplied to the container at the placing section to a selected one among multiple predefined supply flow rates as taught by Fosnight with the motivation to have even gas flow rates through the container to ensure the even removal of contaminants and particulates from the wafers.
Murata and Fosnight do not teach:
a plurality of feed paths each provided between a respective one of the plurality of placing sections and the main pipe, the plurality of feed paths each including at least one feed tube, all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles; and
a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve and control the feed controller based on open/close states of all the open/close valves provided to the main pipe
Kaise teaches a method for purging a substrate container, comprising:
a plurality of feed paths each provided between a respective one of the plurality of placing sections (13, Figure 1, the mounting table is the placing section) and the main pipe (See Annotated Figure 3 below), the plurality of feed paths each including at least one feed tube (See Annotated Figure 3 below), all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles (30, Figure 3); and
a controller (60, Figure 3) configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve (41 and 42, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata and Fosnight to include a plurality of feed paths each provided between a respective one of the plurality of placing sections and the main pipe, the plurality of feed paths each including at least one feed tube, all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles, and a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve as taught by Kaise with the motivation to control the flow of purge gas to multiple sections of the container.
Fosnight, Figure 5
(Annotated by Examiner)
PNG
media_image1.png
846
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kaise, Figure 3
(Annotated by Examiner)
PNG
media_image2.png
564
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8:
Murata discloses:
the plurality of feed paths (33, Figure 4) each including at least one feed tube.
Murata and Kaise:
wherein the at least one feed tube is provided with an orifice.
Fosnight teaches:
wherein the at least one feed tube is provided with an orifice (84, Figure 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata and Kaise to include the at least one feed tube is provided with an orifice as taught by Fosnight with the motivation to precisely control the inlet rate of the purge gas.
Regarding Claim 11:
Murata discloses:
the plurality of feed paths (33, Figure 4).
Murata does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of feed paths include a first feed path and a second feed path; and
a first orifice provided in at least one first feed tube serving as the feed tube of the first feed path and a second orifice provided in at least one second feed tube serving as the feed tube of the second feed path are different from each other, so that a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the first feed tube is different from a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the second feed tube.
Fosnight teaches:
wherein the feed path include a first feed path (23, Figure 5, the feed path is the first feed path); and
a first orifice(84, Figure 5) provided in at least one first feed tube serving as the feed tube of the first feed path (23, Figure 5) and a second orifice (86, Figure 5) are different from each other (Column 12, Lines 18-24), so that a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the first feed tube is different from a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the second orifice (Column 12, Lines 18-24, the orifices are different from each other which allows for a different flow rate to go through each orifice).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata to include the plurality of feed paths include a first feed path, a first orifice provided in at least one first feed tube serving as the feed tube of the first feed path and a second orifice different from each other, so that a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the first feed tube is different from a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the second feed tube as taught by Fosnight with the motivation to precisely control the flow rate of the gas at two different rates.
Murata and Fosnight do not teach:
wherein the plurality of feed paths include a second feed path; and
a second orifice provided in at least one second feed tube serving as the feed tube of the second feed path are different from each other, so that a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the first feed tube is different from a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the second feed tube.
Kaise teaches:
wherein the plurality of feed paths include a first feed path and a second feed path (See Annotated Figure 3 above); and
a second rate control unit (46, Figure 3) provided in at least one second feed tube serving as the feed tube of the second feed path are different from each other (See Annotated Figure 3 above and Paragraph [0042], the second rate control unit is different from the first rate control unit (45)), so that a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the first feed tube is different from a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the second feed tube (Paragraphs [0040-0041], the flow rate of purge gas is different flowing between the first feed tube and the second feed tube).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata and Fosnight to include the plurality of feed paths include a first feed path and a second feed path, a second rate control unit provided in at least one second feed tube serving as the feed tube of the second feed path are different from each other, and a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the first feed tube is different from a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the second feed tube as taught by Kaise with the motivation to individually control the flow rate within the branch to a determined configuration.
Through the combination of Murata, Fosnight, and Kaise, there would be multiple feed paths leading to the same placing unit seen in Kaise implemented in Murata in which each path would include an orifice as seen in Forsnight.
Regarding Claim 12:
Murata discloses:
wherein the feed controller (43, Figure 4) is a flow rate controller configured to control the flow rate of the purge gas (Paragraphs [0034] and [0037], the feed controller is a flow rate controller that controls the flow rate) flowing through the main pipe (41, Figure 4).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata in view of Fosnight in further view of Kaise and Abe (US 20180076055 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
Murata discloses:
the plurality of feed paths (33, Figure 4) each including at least one feed tube.
Murata and Kaise do not teach:
wherein in at least one of the plurality of feed paths, the at least one feed tube includes a plurality of branch tubes connected in parallel, and each of the plurality of branch tubes includes the orifice.
Fosnight teaches:
wherein in at least one of the plurality of feed paths (23, Figure 5), the at least one feed tube includes a plurality of branch tubes connected in parallel (See Annotated Figure 5 above), and each of the plurality of branch tubes includes an orifice (84 and 86, Figure 5, each branch tube includes an orifice).
Murata, Kaise, and Fosnight do not teach:
each of the plurality of branch tubes includes the orifice.
Abe teaches a container storage facility, comprising:
each of the feed tubes (5, Figure 4) includes the orifice (55, Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata, Kaise, and Fosnight to include each of the feed tubes includes the orifice as taught by Abe with the motivation to provide a consistent flow while preventing potential damage from an excessive flow.
Through the combination of Murata, Fosnight, Kaise, and Abe, the feed path of Murata would include the plurality of branch tubes seen in Fosnight where the branch tubes would contain the same type of orifice seen in Abe.
Regarding Claim 10:
Murata discloses:
the plurality of feed paths (33, Figure 4) each including at least one feed tube.
Murata and Kaise do not teach:
wherein orifices identical to the orifice are provided for all of the feed tubes of the plurality of feed paths.
Fosnight teaches:
at least two orifices orifice (84 and 86, Figure 5).
Murata, Kaise, and Fosnight do not teach:
wherein orifices identical to the orifice are provided for all of the feed tubes of the plurality of feed paths.
Abe teaches a container storage facility, comprising:
wherein orifices (55, Figure 4) identical to the orifice (55, Figure 4) are provided for all of the feed tubes of the plurality of feed paths (5, Figure 4, the feed tubes and feed paths are both the branch pipe).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murata, Kaise, and Fosnight to include orifices identical to the orifice are provided for all of the feed tubes of the plurality of feed paths as taught by Abe with the motivation to provide a consistent flow while preventing potential damage from an excessive flow.
Murata, Fosnight, Kaise, and Abe disclose the claimed invention except for orifices identical to the orifice are provided for all of the feed tubes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have each orifice in each of the feed tubes be identical, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9997387 B2 in view of Murata (US 20170133254 A1) in further view of Fosnight (US 5988233 A) and Kaise (US 20130213442 A1).
Regarding Claim 7:
U.S. Patent No. 9997387 B2 discloses a purge system, comprising:
a plurality of placing sections, a main pipe through which purge gas flows, and a feed controller connected to the main pipe and configured to control a flow rate of the purge gas flowing through the main pipe.
U.S. Patent No. 9997387 B2 does not disclose:
a plurality of nozzles each configured to feed purge gas to a container at each of the placing sections;
a plurality of feed paths each provided between a respective one of the plurality of placing sections and the main pipe, the plurality of feed paths each including at least one feed tube, all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles;
at least one open/close valve correspondingly provided to each of the placing sections and configured to switch flow of the purge gas in the feed paths; and
a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve and control the feed controller based on open/close states of all the open/close valves provided to the main pipe;
wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the flow rate of the purge gas supplied to the plurality of nozzles at each of the placing sections to a selected one among multiple predefined supply flow rates.
Murata teaches a purge system (1, Figure 1), comprising:
a plurality of nozzles each configured to feed purge gas to a container (F, Figure 4) at each of the placing sections (Paragraph [0035], there are a plurality of nozzles located at the end of the supply pipe to fill the containers with purge gas);
a plurality of feed paths (33, Figure 4, the supply pipes are the plurality of feed paths) each provided between a respective one of the plurality of placing sections (31, Figure 4)and the main pipe (41, Figure 4), the plurality of feed paths (33, Figure 4) each including at least one feed tube, all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles (Figure 4 and Paragraphs [0035-0036], the at least one feed tube is also the feed path that is connected to the nozzle);
at least one open/close valve (39, Figure 4) correspondingly provided to each of the placing sections (31, Figure 4) and configured to switch flow of the purge gas in the feed paths (Paragraphs [0051] and [0055], the open/close valves control the flow of purge gas in the feed paths); and
a controller (150, Figure 4) configured to control an open/close state (Paragraph [0051]) of the at least one open/close valve (39, Figure 4) and control the feed controller (43, Figure 4) based on open/close states of all the open/close valves provided to the main pipe (Paragraphs [0055-0056], the controller controls the feed controller based on how many open/close valves are opened and how many containers are on the placing sections);
wherein the controller (150, Figure 4) is further configured to adjust the flow rate of the purge gas supplied to the plurality of nozzles at each of the placing sections (31, Figure 4) to a selected one among multiple predefined supply flow rates (Paragraphs [0055-0056], the flow rate is adjusted to a predefined supply flow rate that is calculated based on the target supply rate multiplied by the number of storage containers).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 9997387 B2 to include a plurality of nozzles each configured to feed purge gas to a container at each of the placing sections, a plurality of feed paths each provided between a respective one of the plurality of placing sections and the main pipe, the plurality of feed paths each including at least one feed tube, all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles, at least one open/close valve correspondingly provided to each of the placing sections and configured to switch flow of the purge gas in the feed paths, a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve and control the feed controller based on open/close states of all the open/close valves provided to the main pipe, and the controller is further configured to adjust the flow rate of the purge gas supplied to the plurality of nozzles at each of the placing sections to a selected one among multiple predefined supply flow rates as taught by Murata with the motivation to adjust the flow rate based upon how many containers are connected to ensure each container is purged adequately.
U.S. Patent No. 9997387 B2 and Murata do not teach:
the plurality of feed paths each including at least one feed tube, all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles;
a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve; and
wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the flow rate of the purge gas supplied to the plurality of nozzles at each of the placing sections to a selected one among multiple predefined supply flow rates.
Fosnight teaches a purge system, comprising:
the of feed path (23, Figure 5, the gas supply line is the feed path and feed tube) each including at least one feed tube (See Annotated Figure 5 above, each of the feed path contains its own feed tube);
a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve (Column 12, Lines 24-31 and 39-40, the controller controls the state of the at least one open/close valve (78 and 80)); and
wherein the controller is further configured to adjust the flow rate of the purge gas supplied to the container at the placing section (20, Figure 5, the support surface is the placing section) to a selected one among multiple predefined supply flow rates (Column 12, Lines 35-62, the controller adjusts the flow rate of the purge gas to a selected flow rate based on which path containing an orifice the purge gas flows through).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 9997387 B2 and Murata to include the feed paths each including at least one feed tube, a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve, and the controller is further configured to adjust the flow rate of the purge gas supplied to the container at the placing section to a selected one among multiple predefined supply flow rates as taught by Fosnight with the motivation to have even gas flow rates through the container to ensure the even removal of contaminants and particulates from the wafers.
U.S. Patent No. 9997387 B2, Murata, and Fosnight do not teach:
a plurality of feed paths each provided between a respective one of the plurality of placing sections and the main pipe, the plurality of feed paths each including at least one feed tube, all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles; and
a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve and control the feed controller based on open/close states of all the open/close valves provided to the main pipe
Kaise teaches a method for purging a substrate container, comprising:
a plurality of feed paths each provided between a respective one of the plurality of placing sections (13, Figure 1, the mounting table is the placing section) and the main pipe (See Annotated Figure 3 above), the plurality of feed paths each including at least one feed tube (See Annotated Figure 3 below), all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles (30, Figure 3); and
a controller (60, Figure 3) configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve (41 and 42, Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 9997387 B2, Murata, and Fosnight to include a plurality of feed paths each provided between a respective one of the plurality of placing sections and the main pipe, the plurality of feed paths each including at least one feed tube, all of the feed tubes of the feed paths being connected to the plurality of nozzles, and a controller configured to control an open/close state of the at least one open/close valve as taught by Kaise with the motivation to control the flow of purge gas to multiple sections of the container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahara (US 9064918 B2) teaches an article storage facility comprising a feed controller, a main pipe, placing sections, and a controller.
Yotsumoto (US 6123120 A) teaches clean storage equipment comprising a gas source, valves, and multiple placing sections.
Takahara 2 (US 9595461 B2) teaches a storage facility comprising a feed controller, a main pipe, placing sections, and a controller.
Yoshimoto 2 (US 10373851 B2) teaches a container storage facility comprising a feed controller, a main pipe, placing sections, and a controller.
Onishi (US 10410894 B2) teaches a purge stocker comprising a feed controller, a main pipe, placing sections, valves, orifices, and a controller.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES whose telephone number is (571)272-5373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday: 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/STEPHANIE A SHRIEVES/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights