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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: connecting member in independent claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The amendment to the specification received on October 1, 2025 is acceptable. The specification objections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-9, 12, 13, 23-25, 42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TAJIMA (Japanese Patent Publication JP H07208351 A, filed in IDS received on 12/1/2025, a machine translation has been provided in the PTO-892 Notice of References cited and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, TAJIMA discloses: a scroll compressor (see Figure 1 and Abstract) comprising:
a first scroll (13) comprising a first end plate (15) and a first scroll wrap (16) protruding from the first end plate along a first direction (see Figure 1);
a second scroll (14) comprising a second end plate (21) and a second scroll wrap (22) protruding from the second end plate along a second direction opposite to the first direction (see Figure 1), the second scroll wrap and the first scroll wrap cooperating to form a compression cavity for compressing a medium (see Figure 1, in section labeled 0010);
a support (7) located on a side of the second scroll away from the first scroll (see Figure 1);
a motor (2, 4, 5); and
a driving member (17) rotatably supported by the support (see Figure 1) and located on the side of the second scroll away from the first scroll (see Figure 1), the motor driving, through the driving member, the first scroll to rotate (the driving member is connected with the first scroll via bolts (19), and when it rotates it will rotate the first scroll, see 0010), and the first scroll driving the second scroll to rotate (see Figure 1, and 0010).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, TAJIMA discloses: a connecting member (19) connecting the first scroll to the driving member (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, TAJIMA discloses: the first scroll further comprises an outer wall protruding from the first end plate along the first direction (see Figure 1), the outer wall is on a radially outer side of the first scroll wrap and a radially outer side of the second scroll (see Figure 1), the outer wall is provided with the connecting member (see Figure 1, where the outer wall is provided with the connecting member to attach the driving member to the first scroll), and the driving member is connected to the first scroll through the connecting member (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, TAJIMA discloses: the outer wall has an annular shape (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, TAJIMA discloses: the driving member comprises: a hub portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) having an inner hole (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the hub portion comprising a first end (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) and a second end (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) opposite to each other (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA); and a flange portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) protruding radially outwards from the first end of the hub portion of the driving member (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the driving member being connected to the first scroll through the flange portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA that shows the driving member is connected to the first scroll via the flange portion).
Regarding claim 6, TAJIMA discloses: a fixed shaft (24, 25) fixed to the support (see Figure 1),
the driving member being rotatably mounted to the support by mounting rotatably the hub portion of the driving member to the fixed shaft (see Figure 1, and 0010).
Regarding claim 7, TAJIMA discloses: the second end plate of the second scroll is rotatably supported by the flange portion of the driving member (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, TAJIMA discloses: all bearings (8, 10) of the scroll compressor are disposed on a side of the second end plate of the second scroll facing the first direction (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, TAJIMA discloses: a first bearing, the first end of the hub portion being mounted to the fixed shaft through the first bearing; and/or
a second bearing (8), the second end of the hub portion being mounted to the fixed shaft through the second bearing (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 12, TAJIMA discloses: the support (7) comprises: a cylindrical portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), and a flange portion protruding radially from the cylindrical portion of the support (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the second end of the hub portion of the driving member being supported by the flange portion of the support (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, TAJIMA discloses: a part of the fixed shaft is inserted into the cylindrical portion of the support (see Figure 1) and fixed to the cylindrical portion of the support (see Figure 1), and the fixed shaft has a cylindrical shape (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 23, TAJIMA discloses: the motor (2, 4, 5) comprises a rotor (5) and a stator (4) fixed to the support (the stator is fixed to the support via the container (1)), and the rotor of the motor drives, through the driving member, the first scroll to rotate (see Figure 1, 0010).
Regarding claim 24, TAJIMA discloses: the rotor of the motor is disposed on a side of the stator facing the first direction or the second direction (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 25, TAJIMA discloses: the driving member comprises: a hub portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) having an inner hole (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the hub portion comprising a first end and a second end opposite to each other (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA); and a flange portion protruding radially outwards from the first end of the hub portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the flange portion of the driving member is tightly connected to the outer wall of the first scroll (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), to form a suction cavity of the scroll compressor (see Figure 1, where fluid enters (30) into space (20) that forms around the first and second scrolls), and fluid enters the compression cavity through the suction cavity (see Figure 1, 0010).
Regarding claim 42, TAJIMA discloses: a shell (1);
wherein the first scroll, the second scroll, the support, the motor and the driving member are located in the shell (see Figure 1), and an end of the support is fixed to a bottom of the shell (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 43, TAJIMA discloses: the shell comprises a first shell (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), a second shell (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) and a third shell (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA);
the first shell is connected to the second shell to form a sealed space (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA); and the second shell is connected to the third shell to define a discharge cavity (27) (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA); and
the sealed space accommodates the first scroll, the second scroll, the support, the motor and the driving member, wherein the support is fixed to the first shell (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAJIMA.
Regarding claim 10, TAJIMA discloses: the second scroll further comprises a hub portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) protruding from the second end plate along the first direction (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), and
the fixed shaft has an axial inner hole (see Figure 1).
TAJIMA fails to disclose the scroll compressor further comprises a third bearing, the hub portion of the second scroll being mounted in the axial inner hole of the fixed shaft through the third bearing.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a third bearing where the hub portion of the second scroll being mounted in the axial inner hole of the fixed shaft through the third bearing in the scroll compressor of TAJIMA, since applying a known technique (i.e. using a bearing between a fixed and rotating part), as taught by TAJIMA with respect to the driving member and the fixed shaft, to the interface between the fixed shaft and the second scroll that rotates would have yielded predicable results (i.e. the bearing would reduce the wear between the components). The results are predictable and provide the improvement of a reduction in wear and ease of rotation.
Claims 11, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAJIMA in view of DOEPKER (U.S. Patent Publication US 2018/0223843 A1).
Regarding claim 11, TAJIMA discloses: a hole wall of the inner hole of the hub portion of the driving member has a stepped portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA that shows the stepped portion in the hub portion of the driving member), and the stepped portion of the hub portion of the driving member has a stepped surface facing the second direction (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA),
the fixed shaft has a stepped portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA that shows a stepped portion), and the stepped portion of the fixed shaft has a stepped surface facing the first direction (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA).
TAJIMA fails to disclose the scroll compressor further comprises a first thrust bearing, the first thrust bearing being disposed between the stepped surface of the stepped portion of the hub portion of the driving member and the stepped surface of the stepped portion of the fixed shaft.
Regarding claim 11, DOEPKER teaches: a first thrust bearing (91, 291, 485), the first thrust bearing being disposed between a hub portion and an axially interfacing surface (see Figures 1, 3, and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a first thrust bearing, the first thrust bearing being disposed between the stepped surface of the stepped portion of the hub portion of the driving member and the stepped surface of the stepped portion of the fixed shaft in the scroll compressor of TAJIMA, since applying a known technique (i.e. having a thrust bearing between two components in order to support a component in the axial direction and/or to provide a sliding surface to accept the thrust caused by the operation of the scroll compressor), as taught by DOEPKER, to a known device (i.e. scroll compressor of TAJIMA) would have yielded predicable results. The results are predictable and provide the improvement of providing the necessary support for the components in the scroll compressor that interface with each other due to forces caused by the operation of the scroll compressor.
Regarding claim 17, TAJIMA discloses the claimed invention as disclosed above, however, fails to disclose: a second thrust bearing disposed between the second end plate of the second scroll and the flange portion of the driving member.
Regarding claim 17, DOEPKER teaches: a thrust bearing (91, 291, 485), the thrust bearing being disposed between two axially interfacing components where one rotates and the other is fixed (see Figures 1, 3, and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a second thrust bearing disposed between the second end plate of the second scroll and the flange portion of the driving member in the scroll compressor of TAJIMA, since applying a known technique (i.e. having a thrust bearing between two components in order to support a component in the axial direction and/or to provide a sliding surface to accept the thrust caused by the operation of the scroll compressor), as taught by DOEPKER, to a known device (i.e. scroll compressor of TAJIMA) would have yielded predicable results. The results are predictable and provide the improvement of providing the necessary support for the components in the scroll compressor that interface with each other due to forces caused by the operation of the scroll compressor.
Regarding claim 22, TAJIMA discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose a third thrust bearing disposed between the second end of the hub portion of the driving member and the flange portion of the support.
Regarding claim 22, DOEPKER teaches: a thrust bearing (91, 291, 485), the thrust bearing being disposed between two axially interfacing components where one rotates and the other is fixed (see Figures 1, 3, and 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a third thrust bearing disposed between the second end of the hub portion of the driving member and the flange portion of the support in the scroll compressor of TAJIMA, since applying a known technique (i.e. having a thrust bearing between two components in order to support a component in the axial direction and/or to provide a sliding surface to accept the thrust caused by the operation of the scroll compressor), as taught by DOEPKER, to a known device (i.e. scroll compressor of TAJIMA) would have yielded predicable results. The results are predictable and provide the improvement of providing the necessary support for the components in the scroll compressor that interface with each other due to forces caused by the operation of the scroll compressor.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAJIMA in view of HIRATA (WIPO Publication WO-2018150977 A1, filed in IDS received on 12/1/2025, a machine translation has been provided in the PTO-892 Notice of References cited and is utilized in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 32, TAJIMA discloses: the driving member comprises: a hub portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) having an inner hole (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the hub portion comprising a first end and a second end opposite to each other (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA); and a flange portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA) protruding radially outwards from the first end of the hub portion of the driving member (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA), the driving member being connected to the first scroll through the flange portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA, where the driving member is connected to the first scroll via fasteners (19)),
the outer wall of the first scroll has a scroll connection hole (see Figure 1 that shows a scroll connection hole that receives fastener (19)), the flange portion of the driving member has a driving-member connection hole (see Figure 1, where the flange portion has a driving-member connection hole that allows the fastener (19) to go through and bolt the driving member to the first scroll), one of the driving-member connection hole of the flange portion of the driving member and the scroll connection hole of the outer wall of the first scroll has a threaded portion (see Marked up Figure 1 of TAJIMA, 0010 that discloses the driving member is connected to the first scroll via bolts (19) and therefore, a threaded portion is in the first scroll to accept the bolt (see Figure 1)), and
the connecting member comprises:
a bolt (19), fixedly connecting the first scroll to the driving member through the scroll connection hole and the driving-member connection hole (see Figure 1).
TAJIMA fails to disclose the outer wall of the first scroll has a scroll pin hole, and the flange portion of the driving member has a driving-member pin hole, the connecting member comprises: a pin, inserted into the scroll pin hole of the outer wall of the first scroll and into the driving-member pin hole of the flange portion of the driving member, to determine a relative position of the first scroll and the driving member.
Regarding claim 32, HIRATA teaches: the outer wall of the first scroll has a scroll pin hole (40a), and the flange portion of the driving member has a driving-member pin hole (42a), the connecting member comprises: a pin (40, 42), inserted into the scroll pin hole of the outer wall of the first scroll and into the driving-member pin hole of the flange portion of the driving member (see Figures 2 and 3), to determine a relative position of the first scroll and the driving member (to determine a relative position of the first scroll and the driving member is considered as a functional limitation, It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. 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 apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, HIRATA is capable of performing the claimed function (see Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have the outer wall of the first scroll has a scroll pin hole, and the flange portion of the driving member has a driving-member pin hole, the connecting member comprises: a pin, inserted into the scroll pin hole of the outer wall of the first scroll and into the driving-member pin hole of the flange portion of the driving member, to determine a relative position of the first scroll and the driving member in the scroll compressor of TAJIMA, since applying a known technique (i.e. using both a bolt and a pin, where the pin is used to position two components relative to one another (see Abstract of HIRATA)), as taught by HIRATA, to a known device (i.e. scroll compressor of TAJIMA) would have yielded predicable results. The results are predictable and provide the improvement of being able to properly position the first scroll and the driving member relative to one another (see Abstract of HIRATA).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAJIMA in view of LEE (U.S. Patent Publication US 2018/0252216 A1).
Regarding claim 45, TAJIMA discloses: an Oldham coupling (29) (see Figure 1), however, fails to disclose the driving member further comprises an eccentric ring hole formed in the flange portion, the second end plate of the second scroll has a coupling pin hole, an eccentric ring is disposed in the eccentric ring hole, and a coupling pin is inserted into the coupling pin hole and a hole of the eccentric ring.
Regarding claim 45, LEE teaches: the driving member (355) further comprises an eccentric ring hole (355a) formed in the flange portion (see Figure 4), the second end plate of the second scroll (341) has a coupling pin hole (see Figure 4, ¶0098, that discloses pins (362) are mounted to the end plate), an eccentric ring (361) is disposed in the eccentric ring hole (see Figure 4), and a coupling pin (362) is inserted into the coupling pin hole and a hole of the eccentric ring (see Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have an eccentric ring is disposed in the eccentric ring hole, and a coupling pin is inserted into the coupling pin hole and a hole of the eccentric ring in the scroll compressor of TAJIMA, since performing a simple substitution of rotational devices (i.e. the Oldham ring of TAJIMA) being replaced by a ring with pin interfaces as taught by LEE requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. the controlling of the orbiting of the scrolls). Furthermore, Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976) as cited in KSR:
“the Court derived from the precedents the conclusion that when a patent “simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform” and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1395 (U.S. 2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-16, 18-21, 26-31, 33-35, 37, 39-41, and 44 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-35, 37, and 39-45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s submission of a New IDS prompted a new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on September 23, 2025 and December 1, 2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746