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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected for new matter in regard to the following limitations: “wherein the plurality of carts are exclusively moved by actions of the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms and the one or more raising lift mechanisms;” and “wherein the master controller is configured to cause each cart to move through a predefined sequential row path comprising a subset of the plurality of rows of the modular grow tower that are selected based on grow cycle timing of each cart.” The specification does not state that the carts are moved exclusively by the lift mechanisms. The specification does say that the lift mechanisms can push and pull the cart, but not that that is only mode of horizontal movement, rather, paragraph 0026 contemplates pushing/pulling mechanisms placed along the track to facilitate cart movement. While the specification does discuss the controller controlling the grow path based on growing requirements, it does not specifically discuss the grow path being based on the grow cycle timing of each cart, only that different crops may require different grow times. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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(s) 1-7, 9, 11, 14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Hwang (KR 20170057685 A) and Kim (KR 101864542 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kaplita discloses a modular grow tower system comprising:
a modular grow tower assembly (see fig 1) having:
a plurality of body frames (116 and conveyor frames 106);
a plurality of lift frames (frame at ends 101 and 103); and
a plurality of rows extending in a longitudinal direction and stacked in a vertical direction (grow paths 104a-e);
a plurality of carts (crop carriers 108) for supporting crop material, each cart including:
a tray for holding crop material (trough tray carrier, see para 0057),
a plurality of lowering lift mechanisms for vertically translating the carts between rows (elevators 144, 146, see figs 1a and 2a);
wherein a first individual one of the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms located on one side of the modular grow tower is configured to at least push or pull a first cart from the first individual lowering lift mechanism onto an individual row of the plurality of rows of the modular grow tower assembly (push pull conveyor with lifts 144 and 146, see para 0096 and 0107, and fig 2), and a second individual one of the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms located on an opposite side of the modular grow tower is configured to at least push a second cart from the first individual lowering lift mechanism onto the individual row of the plurality of rows of the modular grow tower assembly (push pull conveyor with lifts 144 and 146, see para 0096 and 0107, and fig 2);
one or more lift mechanisms for vertically translating the carts to a harvesting component (harvest location 148, see para 0113 and figs 1a and 2a), a seeding component, or a sanitation component (wash station 152, see para 0117 and figs 1a and 2a);
a sustenance system for providing water and nutrients to the crop material (see para 0101);
a lighting system including lighting elements mounted within the body frames (grow lights 128, see para 0102);
a drainage system comprising drainage troughs and drainage pipes for collecting and transporting excess water and nutrients (drains 118 connected to vertical drainpipe 120, also drains 122 and vertical drain 126, see para 0099-0100); and
a master controller for managing and controlling operations of the modular grow tower system (controller 414, see para 0142), wherein the master controller is configured to cause each cart to move through a predefined sequential row path comprising a subset of the plurality of rows of the modular grow tower that are selected based on grow cycle timing of each cart (routing call based on crop needs, see para 0154, see also path options, para 0109-0117, see also 112(a) rejection above).
Kaplita fails to disclose each cart including a plurality of wheels, rails on each individual row, and wherein the plurality of carts are exclusively moved by actions of the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms and the one or more raising lift mechanisms; and a separate one or more raising lift mechanisms for vertically translating the carts to the harvesting, seeding or sanitation component.
Hwang teaches a plurality of lift frames (21); and a plurality of rows extending in a longitudinal direction and stacked in a vertical direction (rows 11); a plurality of carts (30) for supporting crop material, each cart including: a tray for holding crop material (32), a plurality of wheels (4 wheels 31 on each grow cart 30, see figs 1-2), a plurality of lowering lift mechanisms for vertically translating the carts between rows (left and right 20); rails on each individual row (rails 13, see figs 1-2), and a plurality of lowering lift mechanisms (left and right 20, see fig 1) for vertically translating the carts between rows (11), wherein a first individual one of the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms located on one side of the modular grow tower is configured to at least push or pull a first cart from the first individual lowering lift mechanism onto rails of an individual row of the plurality of rows of the modular grow tower assembly (lift 20 moves up and down and pushes the hydroponic cart 30 onto the rails 13 of the shelf 11, see fig 1 and page 3)., and a second individual one of the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms located on an opposite side of the modular grow tower is configured to at least push a second cart from the first individual lowering lift mechanism onto rails of the individual row of the plurality of rows of the modular grow tower assembly (lift 20 moves up and down and pushes the hydroponic cart 30 onto the rails 13 of the shelf 11, see fig 1 and page 3), wherein the plurality of carts (30) are exclusively moved by actions of the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms and the one or more raising lift mechanisms (lift 20 moves up and down and pushes the hydroponic cart 30 onto the rails 13 of the shelf 11, see fig 1 and page 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the growing system of Kaplita with the rails, carts having wheels and the movement of the carts being exclusively by the lift lowering mechanisms as taught by Hwang with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide an efficient growing and conveyance system that requires less energy and power than one with a mechanical conveyor, thereby providing a more environmental friendly and cost-effective growing system.
Kim teaches a plurality of lowering lift mechanisms for vertically translating the carts between rows (lifts 73, 74 and 82 in lift frames 7 and 8 for moving carts between rows, see fig 5-7); one or more raising lift mechanisms (lift 9) for vertically translating the carts to a harvesting component (lift 91 for transporting to harvest location at lower end of lift 9, see fig 5-7), a seeding component, or a sanitation component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the lift for the work component station separate from the lifts used for moving carts between rows as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for transport of carts to the component station without disrupting the flow of the carts still moving through the grow path.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein an individual one of the one or more raising lift mechanisms is structurally integrated within a harvest frame (lift 91 in harvest frame 9, see fig 5-7).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kim further teaches wherein the one or more lowering lift mechanisms (73, 74 and 82) are positioned within the lift frames (7 and 8), wherein the lowering lift mechanisms are separate from the one or more raising lift mechanisms (91) that are structurally integrated within the harvest frame (9, see fig 5-7).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the modular grow tower assembly is configurable to adjust a size and arrangement of the modular grow tower assembly by adding or removing body frames or lift frames (see para 0095, different sizes and number of grow paths available).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the carts traverse a moving path through the modular grow tower assembly, facilitated by the lowering lift mechanisms and the raising lift mechanisms (see para 0112).
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the moving path comprises a serpentine moving path (serpentine growth path 102, see para 0093, see also arrows in fig 1a).
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses further comprising: a seeding component for dispensing crop material into the carts (planting station 406 includes seeding station, see para 0138 and 0148); a harvesting component (harvesting station 148, see para 0118 and fig 1a) for harvesting crop material from the carts; and a sanitation component (wash station 152, see para 0138 and 0145) for cleaning the carts after harvesting.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the seeding component is mounted on one of the lift frames. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grow system with the seeding component mounted on the lift frame with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for seeding immediately prior to placement of the cart on the grow path, ensuring the seeds are exposed to ideal germination conditions directly after planting, to facilitate healthy growth and development, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the master controller is configured to manage environmental factors including: lighting, temperature, humidity, airflow, and nutrient delivery through the sustenance system (see para 0052, 0089 airflow, temp and nutrient recipe;, 0097 light, humidity, C02 and nutrient levels; and 0148, growth environment conditions, e.g., lighting intensity, lighting duration/cycling, air flow, temperature, humidity, nutrient types, nutrient levels).
Regarding claim 11, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita as modified by Hwang further teaches wherein the first individual lowering lift mechanisms and the raising lift mechanisms and the second individual lowering lift mechanism are synchronized to facilitate a transition of carts between different rows and sections of the modular grow tower assembly by pushing or pulling the first cart onto the first individual lowering lift mechanism before the second individual lowering mechanism begins pushing the second cart onto the individual row of the plurality of rows of the modular grow tower assembly (push pull conveyor, see para 0096, see fig 1a and 2a of Kaplita, as modified above with the movement of the carts being moved only by the lift mechanisms of Hwang).
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the drainage system is configured to reuse collected water and nutrients within the sustenance system (pumps for circulating fluid, fluid returns to the fertigation supply, see para 0101).
Regarding claim 19, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the one or more raising lift mechanisms comprise a plurality of raising lift mechanisms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system with a plurality of raising lift mechanisms with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for multiple carts to be transported to or from the component work station at once, providing a more time efficient system, and 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.
Regarding claim 20, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses moving an individual cart through a sequential engagement with to the harvesting component (harvest station 148), the sanitation component (wash station 152) integrated within a harvest frame (harvest station 148 and wash station 152 integrated in harvest frame- lowest row of 100, see fig 1a), and the seeding station (406), before transferring the individual cart to one of the lowering lift mechanisms to reenter the modular grow tower assembly at a top row (conveys carriers from planting station 406 to crop elevator 144, see fig 4a, controller is able to move the cart to the top row).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the one or more raising lift mechanisms are configured to receive an individual cart form an end of the programmed moving path and raise the cart to the harvest component.
Kim teaches wherein the one or more raising lift mechanisms (91) are configured to receive an individual cart (4) from an end of the programmed moving path and raise the cart to the harvest component (harvest location at 9, see figs 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the raising mechanisms receiving the cart and transporting it to the harvest location as taught by Kim with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for transport of carts to the component station without disrupting the flow of the carts still moving through the grow path.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the cart is raised to the harvest location and the seeding station is integrated within a harvest frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system with the cart being raised to the harvest location with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a better height of cart for human workers to comfortably conduct the harvesting procedures without experiencing back pain or injury from frequent bending, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the grow system with the seeding component integrated within the harvest frame with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for seeding immediately prior to placement of the cart on the grow path, ensuring the seeds are exposed to ideal germination conditions directly after planting, to facilitate healthy growth and development, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Hwang (KR 20170057685 A) and Kim (KR 101864542 B1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Miller (US 10421618 B2, hereafter referred to as Miller ‘618).
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 7.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the sanitation component includes one or more ultraviolet sensors, imaging sensors, or microbial sensors.
Miller ‘618 teaches wherein the sanitation component includes one or more ultraviolet sensors, imaging sensors, or microbial sensors (sanitizing component 120 with UV radiation and automatic inspection system 160 with imaging sensors, see col 6, lines 66-67 and col 7, lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the image sensors of Miller ‘618 with a reasonable expectation of success because this will confirm that the cart is adequately sanitized prior to its reentry into the growing path.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Hwang (KR 20170057685 A) and Kim (KR 101864542 B1) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Millar (US 20200154647 A1, hereafter referred to as Millar ‘647).
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 9.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the master controller is configured to adjust the environmental factors and grow recipes based on user input.
Miller ‘647 teaches wherein the master controller is configured to adjust the environmental factors and grow recipes based on user input (user send input for grow recipes, see para 0054).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the user input of Miller ‘773 with a reasonable expectation of success because this will allow the user to override previous grow recipes if needed for the health of the plants.
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein sensors for monitoring crop growth and development (sensors for environmental conditions, see para 0089, 0101, 0108), wherein the master controller adjusts one or more grow recipes based on data from the sensors (sensors for environmental conditions and adjustment of parameters based on sensor data, see para 0089, 0101, 0108).
The modified reference fails to teach the sensors being located in the carts.
Millar ‘647 teaches wherein the carts include sensors for monitoring crop growth and development (cart 104 may include a temperature and/or humidity sensor, see para 0042), wherein the master controller adjusts one or more grow recipes based on data from the sensors (controller adjusts based on data from sensors, see also para 0052-0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the grow system with the sensors being located in the carts as taught by Millar ‘647 with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide more precise data for each cart, therefore ensuring that each plant is accurately monitored so its conditions can be adjusted accordingly.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Hwang (KR 20170057685 A) and Kim (KR 101864542 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Chan (US 20230117451 A1) and Millar (US 11019773 B2).
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the sustenance system is configured to deliver precise amounts of water and nutrients to the crop material and includes spray nozzles, drip nozzles, flood nozzles, and fluid lines.
Millar ‘773 teaches wherein the sustenance system is configured to deliver precise amounts of water and nutrients to the crop material and includes spray nozzles, flood nozzles, and fluid lines (see col 6, lines 63-67 and col 6, lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the water delivery of Millar ‘773 with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plants receive optimal hydration to promote growth and development while preventing overwatering or root rot.
Chan teaches drip nozzles (see para 0078-0079).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the drip nozzles of Chan with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the plants receive optimal hydration to promote growth and development while preventing overwatering or root rot, and specifically, drip nozzles ensure slow and steady hydration which provides adequate moisture without unnecessarily flooding the plant.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Hwang (KR 20170057685 A) and Kim (KR 101864542 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuhns (US 20240122130 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein each cart includes male and female engagement mechanisms for connecting adjacent carts to maintain alignment and ensure smooth movement through the modular grow tower assembly.
Kuhns teaches wherein each cart includes male and female engagement mechanisms for connecting adjacent carts to maintain alignment and ensure smooth movement through the modular grow tower assembly (see para 0122, tray ends 260 has male end, tray end 262 has female end, see figs 1, 14 and 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the carts with the male and female engagement of Kuhns with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the carts remain on the track while moving through the grow path.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplita (US 20220256790 A1) in view of Hwang (KR 20170057685 A) and Kim (KR 101864542 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mei (CN-107963572-A).
Regarding claim 16, the modified reference teaches the modular grow tower system of claim 1, and Kaplita further discloses wherein the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms are each equipped with a motorized apparatus configured to push or pull the carts in a longitudinal direction (powered push/pull conveyor, see para 0096).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms are each equipped with a receiving plate for engaging a cart, wherein the receiving plate includes a first arm located on a first end of the receiving plate and a second arm located on a second end of the receiving plate opposite the first end, wherein the first arm and the second arm include a notch for engaging a first engagement mechanism or a second engagement mechanism of the cart, wherein the first and second arms are configured to support the wheels of the cart and the notches of the first and second arms are configured to engage the first engagement mechanism and the second engagement mechanism of the cart, wherein the receiving plate is configured to be actuated in a longitudinal direction between an extended position having the first and second arms extending outside a respective lift frame and a retracted position having the first and second arms positioned within the lift frame.
Mei teaches wherein the plurality of lowering lift mechanisms are each equipped with a receiving plate (4014, see fig 5) for engaging a cart, wherein the receiving plate includes a first arm (left 4013, see fig 5) located on a first end of the receiving plate and a second arm (right 4013, see fig 5) located on a second end of the receiving plate opposite the first end, wherein the first arm and the second arm include a notch (4012) for engaging a first engagement mechanism or a second engagement mechanism of the cart, wherein the first and second arms are configured to support the wheels of the cart (cart supported on arms, see figs 13-14) and the notches of the first and second arms are configured to engage the first engagement mechanism and the second engagement mechanism of the cart (see figs 13-14), wherein the receiving plate is configured to be actuated in a longitudinal direction between an extended position having the first and second arms extending outside a respective lift frame and a retracted position having the first and second arms positioned within the lift frame (extended and retracted position to receive and support cart, see fig 1 and 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the lowering lift mechanisms with the extendable and retractable arms and receiving plate of Mei with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide an efficient and secure retrieval of each grow cart to and from the tower to ensure plants are securely transported between rows of the grow tower.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is 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. Claim 18 is objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 17.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
While the prior art of record teaches grow systems with grow paths as taught by Kaplita and Kim above, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the master controller is configured to assign each cart a programmed grow path through a non-sequential subset of the plurality of rows, wherein each programmed grow path originates at a first row proximate to a seeding station, advances to a row near a top end of the modular grow tower assembly, and proceeds through a non-sequential series of rows towards a bottom end of the modular grow tower assembly according to a grow recipe program executed by the master controller, wherein each cart traverses only a designated subset of the plurality of rows rather than all rows in a sequential order.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7, 12, 18 and 20 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. Specifically, these claims have new grounds of rejection due to amendments and therefore these arguments are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
