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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claim in the reply filed on 08/05/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-23 are withdrawn by the examiner from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/05/2026. Thus, claims 1-17 will be examined in the current application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in FIG. 4, there are two instances of one part labeled with two references numbers. By labeling a single part with two reference numbers, it is confusing to the examiner what the applicant intends to label the part as. In this instance, the examiner understands the reason for using two reference numbers for those specific parts is to indicate that the location of the upper portion (52) of the first contact (44) and second contact (46) includes the first contact (44) and second contact (46). The examiner suggests to better clarify the labels, label the upper portion (52) using a dotted line box, as done in FIG. 7 with the lower portion (50).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “36” has been used to designate both, what the examiner believes to be, a ramp and a first side.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 17, in the last line of the specification, there appears to be a spacing issue between the words in the sentence, meaning extra spaces have been added between words.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “the detected measurement” in reference to “a measurement” as described in claim 1. The examiner finds it redundant to add the descriptor “detected” to each of the references to the “measurement”, as there is no other “measurement” mentioned that would invoke the need for a descriptor. The examiner suggests modifying “the detected measurement” to be “the measurement” to avoid unnecessary confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the second line of the claim, there appears to be a spacing issue where the claim says “measurement , a volume”. The examiner suggests correcting the spacing to read “measurement, a volume”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “the determined volume” in reference to “a volume” as described in claim 6. The examiner finds it redundant to add the descriptor “determined” to each of the references to the “volume”, as there is no other “volume” mentioned that would invoke the need for a descriptor. The examiner suggests modifying “the determined volume” to be “the volume” to avoid unnecessary confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the third line of the claim, there appears to be a spacing issue where the claim says “detected and determine”. The examiner suggests correcting the spacing to read “detected and determine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “the determined rate of flow” in reference to “a rate of flow” as described in claim 11. The examiner finds it redundant to add the descriptor “determined” to each of the references to the “rate of flow”, as there is no other “rate of flow” mentioned that would invoke the need for a descriptor. The examiner suggests modifying “the determined rate of flow” to be “the rate of flow” to avoid unnecessary confusion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the first and second line of the claim, the claim states “a lower portion of the first contact and the second contact”. This could lead to confusion as to whether the first and second contacts share the same lower portion, or if they have individual lower portions. To add better specificity to the claim, the examiner suggests modifying the claim to read “a lower portion of the first contact and a lower portion of the second contact”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the first and second line of the claim, the claim states “an upper portion of the first contact and the second contact”. This could lead to confusion as to whether the first and second contacts share the same upper portion, or if they have individual upper portions. To add better specificity to the claim, the examiner suggests modifying the claim to read “an upper portion of the first contact and an upper portion of the second contact”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim states “when the detected measurement varies from the initial value by more than the threshold value for more than one of the detected measurement.” However, claim 1 there is reference to only one measurement being made periodically. The examiner is confused as to how there becomes “more than one” measurement as stated at the end of claim 5 that make up the threshold value, when in claim 1, and also in the middle of claim 5, there is focus on a specific detected measurement. The examiner believes there to be a missing step that connects the single measurement from claim 1 to the threshold value for “more than one” measurement in claim 5, and without proper explanation, renders the claim indefinite. The examiner suggests modifying a claim to better clarify how it is possible for there to be “more than one” detected measurements. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the threshold valve to be a fixed valve.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aelen et al. (WO 2019/166348 A1; herein, Aelen), and further in view of O’Toole et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0139026 A1; herein, O’Toole).
Regarding claim 1, Aelen discloses a breast pump (FIG. 1, breast pump arrangement comprises an expression kit 100 and a pump unit 400) comprising:
a cup assembly (suction hood 110) for engaging at least a portion of a breast including a nipple and an area surrounding the nipple (pg. 5 lines 12-13, " when a breast is placed into the suction hood 110");
a vacuum pump assembly (pump unit 400) for applying a vacuum to the cup assembly and thereby to at least the nipple of the breast (FIG. 1, pg. 5 lines 9-13, "The pump unit 400 can comprise a vacuum pump 430 and a control unit 440 for controlling the operation of the pump unit 400 in particular to control the pressure to generate a vacuum in the suction hood 110");
a container (bottle 140) fluidly connected to the cup assembly for receiving milk expressed from the nipple of the breast (FIG. 1, pg. 2 lines 14-19, milk is ejected from breast into bottle);
a sensor assembly positioned in the container (FIG. 3, milk-amount sensor 250 is part of and located in the same spot as milk flow sensor 200 in FIG. 1), the sensor assembly including a first contact and a second contact (FIG. 3, milk-amount sensor 250 comprises two metal plates 251); and
a controller (control unit 440) configured to:
periodically detect a measurement indicative of a capacitance between the first contact and the second contact of the sensor assembly (FIG. 3, pg. 6 lines 13-19, "milk-amount sensor 250 as capacitance sensor…The two metal plates 251 act as the two plates of a capacitor to allow a capacitance measurement....any changes in the amount of milk in the container 240 will result in changes of the capacitance"); and
operate the vacuum pump assembly to apply the vacuum to the cup assembly (FIG. 1, pg. 5 lines 9-13, "The pump unit 400 can comprise a vacuum pump 430 and a control unit 440 for controlling the operation of the pump unit 400 in particular to control the pressure to generate a vacuum in the suction hood 110").
Aelen does not disclose the controller including a processor and a memory, the memory containing instructions that when executed by the processor configure the controller, and operation of the vacuum pump assembly is based at least in part on the detected measurement indicative of the capacitance between the first contact and the second contact of the sensor assembly.
However, O’Toole teaches the controller (controller 278) including a processor (CPU 279) and a memory (memory 280), the memory containing instructions that when executed by the processor configure the controller (FIGURE 26, [0241], "a memory 280 is provided in the device 270 for controlling the operation of the sensing assembly 272"), and operation of the vacuum pump assembly is based at least in part on the detected measurement indicative of the capacitance between the first contact and the second contact of the sensor assembly ([0220]-[0231], Various functions of pumping can be automatically changed based on dynamic sensor feedback within the breast pump device. These can include automatically adjusting one or more pumping parameters during operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the breast pump and controller disclosed by Aelen to include a processor and memory that support operation of the vacuum pump assembly at least in part by sensed measurement as taught by O’Toole in order to determine the level of liquid inside the container ([0242]) by means of calculations using stored information ([0246]).
Regarding claim 6, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen discloses the controller is further configured to determine, based at least in part on the detected measurement , a volume of milk in the container when the controller is operating the vacuum pump assembly (pg. 5 lines 30-32, "The milk-amount sensor 250 can be coupled to a calculating unit 260 which determines a milk flow based on the height and volume measurements of the milk-amount sensor 250. ").
Regarding claim 7, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen does not disclose the controller is configured to determine the volume of milk in the container using a lookup table stored in the memory that correlates the detected measurement to a volume of milk. However, O’Toole teaches the controller is configured to determine the volume of milk in the container using a lookup table stored in the memory that correlates the detected measurement to a volume of milk ([0245]-[0246], "Each record from the database contains a look-up table of information, which contains expected intensity ratios (IE1:IR1 and IE2:IR2) for the container 275 when filled at different orientations, and with different quantities of liquid."). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified controller disclosed by Aelen to determine the volume of milk in the container using a lookup table stored in the memory as taught by O’Toole in order to compare expected volume measurements with recorded volume measurements which supports the controller in calculating the level and quantity of liquid inside the container ([0245]-[0246]).
Regarding claim 8, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen discloses the controller is configured to determine the volume of milk in the container by calculating the volume of milk in the container using an equation that correlates the detected measurement to a volume of milk (pg. 6 lines 2-11, equation used by calculating unit 260 listed with variable definitions).
Regarding claim 10, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen discloses the controller is further configured to transmit the determined volume of milk in the container to a remote device for display to a user of the breast pump (pg. 5 lines 16-18, "The control unit 440 can forward milk flow information to the electronic device 300 which can display this information on the display 320." Examiner interprets "milk flow information" to include a volume measurement).
Regarding claim 11, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen does not disclose the controller is further configured to store in the memory each detected measurement that was periodically detected and determine a rate of flow of milk into the container based on two or more of the detected measurement stored in the memory. However, O’Toole teaches the controller is further configured to store in the memory each detected measurement that was periodically detected ([0246], "the controller 278 calculates the level and quantity of liquid inside the container 275 and stores this information in the memory 280") and determine a rate of flow of milk into the container based on two or more of the detected measurement stored in the memory ([0243]-[0248], Acceleration parameter is also recorded and stored when recording the intensity ratio. With the acceleration parameter there also exists a predetermined threshold acceleration parameter. Both the intensity ratios as well as the acceleration parameters are a collection of past timestamps that affect current operation of the device; therefore, the device uses past rate measurements to determine current operational parameters.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified controller disclosed by Aelen to store detected measurements in the memory and determine a rate of flow based off stored measurements as taught by O’Toole in order to improve the accuracy of the sensor assembly ([0261]) and maintain the integrity of the data from excessive acceleration ([0248]).
Regarding claim 12, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen discloses the controller is further configured to transmit the determined rate of flow of milk to a remote device for display to a user of the breast pump (pg. 5 lines 16-18, "The control unit 440 can forward milk flow information to the electronic device 300 which can display this information on the display 320." Examiner interprets "milk flow information" to include a rate of flow measurement).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aelen in view of O’Toole as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Makower et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0072118 A1; herein, Makower).
Regarding claim 9, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen does not disclose the controller is further configured to stop operating the vacuum pump assembly when the determined volume of milk in the container exceeds a volume threshold value. However, Makower the controller is further configured to stop operating the vacuum pump assembly when the determined volume of milk in the container exceeds a volume threshold value (FIG. 32, [0206], “As the total milk volume expressed reaches the desired volume indicated by curve 494, the controller 52 can automatically cease pumping action and end the pumping session.” Examiner interprets desired volume to mean the same as a threshold value.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified controller disclosed by Aelen to stop operating the vacuum pump assembly when the determined volume of milk in the container exceeds a volume threshold value as taught by Makower in order to allow the user the ability to pump until the volume goal is met ([0206]).
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aelen in view of O’Toole as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dobrusskin et al. (WO 2020/053236 A1; herein, Dobrusskin).
Regarding claim 2, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen does not disclose the detected measurement has an initial value at a start of operation of the breast pump and the controller is further configured to operate the vacuum pump assembly in a first operating mode based at least in part on the initial value of the detected measurement. However, Dobrusskin teaches the detected measurement has an initial value at a start of operation of the breast pump and the controller is further configured to operate the vacuum pump assembly in a first operating mode based at least in part on the initial value of the detected measurement (pg. 7 lines 15-20 and pg. 8 lines 3-14, first operating mode occurs when the pump is switched on and is in a first state). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified controller disclosed by Aelen to operate the vacuum pump assembly in a first operating mode based at least in part on an initial value of the detected measurement as taught by Dobrusskin in order to enable the user a comfortable fit of the breast in the cup assembly before stronger pressure is applied (pg. 5 lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 3, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen does not disclose the controller is further configured to operate the vacuum pump assembly in a second operating mode when the detected measurement varies from the initial value, wherein the second operating mode differs from the first operating mode. However, Dobrusskin teaches the controller is further configured to operate the vacuum pump assembly in a second operating mode when the detected measurement varies from the initial value, wherein the second operating mode differs from the first operating mode (pg. 7 lines 15-20 and pg. 8 lines 19-23, Pump is switched to a second operating mode when the second state has been detected. First and second operating modes are different as the first operating mode is described as "detection mode" and the second operating mode is described as "stimulation mode or expression mode"). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified controller disclosed by Aelen to operate the vacuum pump assembly in a second operating mode when the detected measurement varies from the initial value as taught by Dobrusskin in order to initiate milk extraction (pg. 5 lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 4, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen does not disclose the controller is further configured to operate the vacuum pump assembly at the second operating mode when the detected measurement varies from the initial value by more than a threshold value. However, Dobrusskin teaches the controller is further configured to operate the vacuum pump assembly at the second operating mode when the detected measurement varies from the initial value by more than a threshold value (pg. 8 lines 19-23, Pump is switched to a second operating mode when the second state has been detected; pg. 15 lines 8-10, "To let the controller identify the difference between a threshold operating parameters and the actual (measured) operating parameters, the controller can be controlled with a fixed threshold operating parameter." Fixed threshold value can separate first state from second state.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified controller disclosed by Aelen to operate the vacuum pump assembly at the second operating mode when the detected measurement varies from the initial value by more than a threshold value as taught by Dobrusskin in order to maintain breast pump life time and reduce the heat production (pg. 16 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen does not disclose the controller is further configured to operate the vacuum pump assembly at the second operating mode when the detected measurement varies from the initial value by more than a threshold value for more than one of the detected measurement. However, Dobrusskin teaches the controller is further configured to operate the vacuum pump assembly at the second operating mode when the detected measurement varies from the initial value by more than a threshold value for more than one of the detected measurement (pg. 8 lines 19-23, Pump is switched to a second operating mode when the second state has been detected; pg. 15 lines 8-10, "To let the controller identify the difference between a threshold operating parameters and the actual (measured) operating parameters, the controller can be controlled with a fixed threshold operating parameter." Fixed threshold value can separate first state from second state.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified controller disclosed by Aelen to operate the vacuum pump assembly at the second operating mode when the detected measurement varies from the initial value by more than a threshold value as taught by Dobrusskin in order to maintain breast pump life time and reduce the heat production (pg. 16 lines 1-2).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aelen in view of O’Toole as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bartlett et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0078503 A1; herein, Bartlett).
Regarding claim 13, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen discloses the sensor assembly comprises a ramp extending toward a bottom of the container (FIG. 3, wall 241 angled from first opening 242 to second opening 243).
Aelen does not explicitly disclose wherein the ramp is positioned to receive the milk expressed from the nipple of the breast and direct the received milk along a first side of the ramp toward the bottom of the container.
However, Bartlett teaches wherein the ramp is positioned to receive the milk expressed from the nipple of the breast (FIG. 6, [0056], “The valve 224 can be a one way valve that allows fluid to flow into the container 212”) and direct the received milk along a first side of the ramp toward the bottom of the container (FIG. 7, milk flows through one way valve 224 contacting the inside of the valve). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified breast pump disclosed by Aelen to have a ramp for directing milk into the container as taught by Bartlett in order to provide a space where milk can be detected and measured as it moves through the ramp ([0075]).
Regarding claim 14, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen discloses the first contact and the second contact are positioned on the ramp (FIG. 3, pg. 6 lines 15-16, "The milk-amount sensor 250 comprises two metal plates 251 in the wall 241 of the container.").
Regarding claim 15, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen does not disclose the first contact and the second contact are positioned on a second side of the ramp opposite the first side of the ramp. However, Bartlett teaches the first contact and the second contact are positioned on a second side of the ramp opposite the first side of the ramp (FIG. 7, excitation electrode 702 and sensing electrode 704 are shown on the outside of either flap of the valve 224, opposite of the inside where the milk contacts when pumping). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified ramp of the breast pump disclosed by Aelen to position the first and second contacts on a second side of the ramp as taught by Bartlett in order to space apart the contacts, so that when a change in the spacing occurs, a measurement can be taken to estimate of the volume or flow rate of fluid passing through the ramp ([0075]).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aelen in view of O’Toole and Bartlett as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Boiarski (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2010/0251812 A1).
Regarding claim 16, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen does not disclose a lower portion of the first contact and the second contact extends to a lower portion of the first side of the ramp adjacent to the bottom of the container. However, Boiarski teaches a lower portion of the first contact and the second contact extends to a lower portion of the first side of the ramp adjacent to the bottom of the container (Fig. 2, sensor 110 includes sensor 118 which is located on inner surface 109 and extends to the bottom). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified first and second contacts of the breast pump disclosed by Aelen to extend to a lower portion on the first side of the ramp as taught by Boiarski in order to sense the volume of the fluid in the container ([0053]).
Regarding claim 17, in the modified breast pump of Aelen, Aelen does not disclose an upper portion of the first contact and the second contact extends to a position outside of the container. However, Boiarski teaches an upper portion of the first contact and the second contact extends to a position outside of the container (Fig. 2, [0051], “The sensor 110 connects to a plurality of electrical interface devices 150 at the top of the container 100. The interface devices 150 conduct electrical signals from the sensor 110 to a reusable electronic unit 160 that attaches to the container 100.” Examiner interprets the connection between the sensor 110 and reusable electronic unit 160 as extending the contact outside the container.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified first and second contacts of the breast pump disclosed by Aelen to extend to a position outside the container as taught by Boiarski in order to connect the first and second contacts with the ability to transmit information outside the container ([0051]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Weber et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0016306 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a breast pump having a valve head controlling the flow of breastmilk.
Barack (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0378895 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a breast pump having a controller and memory for storing pumping mode descriptions.
Bauer (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0263611 A1) is considered relevant prior art with regards to a breast pump system with means for recording pumping session data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evelyn A Thoman whose telephone number is (571)272-8496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m-4:30 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Tsai can be reached at 571-270-5246. 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.
/EVELYN A THOMAN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/MICHAEL J TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights