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 species I, figures 1-22 and claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 7/29/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-8, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins et al. (US Pat No 7,562,833 B2) in view of Nelson et al. (US Pat No Re. 33,823). (All annotations to Perkins unless specified otherwise)
Re claim 1, Perkins et al. show a sprinkler (Fig. 4) assembly comprising:
an inlet (14) configured to receive water;
a body (12) supported by the inlet and having a confinement structure (38);
a nozzle (20) supported by the body and disposed downstream of the inlet, the nozzle being in fluid communication with the inlet and configured to direct the water out of the nozzle along an axis; and
a deflector assembly (46) having a base (48) and a distribution plate (26), a portion of the base (48) being disposed in the confinement structure (38) to allow the deflector assembly to move with respect to the axis in at least a first rotational direction, the distribution plate (26) comprising a plurality of channels (60) on a side of the distribution plate facing the nozzle, at least one channel (60) of the plurality of channels defining a water path having an entrance (at the peak of 26) for receiving the water, an exit (at the annotated bottom as “bottom”) for distributing the water, and a leading edge (edge between right side wall and bottom) and a pair of sides (see annotated figure) along a common length of the at least one channel in a direction towards the exit of the at least one channel, the water path having a first curved shape.
Perkins et al. does not teach wherein the leading edge of the at least one channel has a second curved shape along the common length different from the first curved shape, the second curved shape moving closer to one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit, and wherein the one of the pair of sides has a degree of curvature that is different from a degree of curvature from the another one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit.
However, Nelson et al. show a deflector (Figs. 9 & 10) with a channel (296) defining a water path having an entrance for receiving water, an exit for distributing the water, and a leading edge (294) and a pair of sides (292) along a common length of the at least one channel in a direction towards the exit of the at least one channel, the water path having a first curved shape so as to impart lateral forces on the deflector in the first rotational direction,
wherein the leading edge (294) of the at least one channel has a second curved shape along the common length different from the first curved shape (col. 13, lines 67-68 through col. 14, lines 1-2), the second curved shape moving closer to one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit, and
wherein the one of the pair of sides has a degree of curvature that is different from a degree of curvature from the another one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit (col. 13, lines 67-68 through col. 14, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the leading edge of Perkins et al. arranged in the same manner as the leading edge in Nelson et al. to create a more uniform distribution through the pattern area (Nelson – col. 14, lines 7-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
329
674
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Perkins et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show wherein the at least one channel has a cross-sectional shape (see annotated figure) that is asymmetric across a vertical line passing through a vertex or bottom of the at least one channel.
Re claim 3, Perkins et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show the at least one channel has a cross-sectional shape (see annotated figure) that is asymmetric across a vertical line passing through a midpoint of a width of the at least one channel as measured at a top of the at least one channel.
Re claim 4, Perkins et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show a first distance measured between the leading edge (Nelson – Fig. 10, 294) and one of the one side of the pair of sides or the another one of the pair of sides (see annotated figure) at a first location along the at least one channel (60) being different than a second distance measured between the leading edge (Nelson - 294) and the one of the one side of the pair of sides or the another one of the pair of sides (see annotated figure) at a second location along the at least one channel (60), the first location being different than the second location (the distance will vary along the length of the channel).
Re claim 5, Perkins et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show the distribution plate (Fig. 4, 26) further comprises a first region (annotated figure – “web”) and a second region (annotated figure – “bottom”), a thickness of the first region being different than a thickness of the second region.
Re claims 6 & 17, Perkins et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show the distribution plate (Fig. 4, 26) further comprises a web (see annotated figure) located between adjacent channels (60) of the plurality of channels, the web having a wall thickness that is greater than a wall thickness of the adjacent channels (60).
Re claim 7, Perkins et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show a retainer (Fig. 3, 24) configured to be inserted in the body (12) and between the nozzle (20) and the inlet (14), the nozzle (20) being removable (22) from the body independent from removing the retainer (24) from the body, the retainer being configured to support a seal (Fig. 3, o-ring shown between 24 and 14) at least when disposed in the body.
Re claim 8, Perkins et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show the retainer (Fig. 3, 24) is further configured to engage (abuts at 30) with the nozzle (20) so that the nozzle and the retainer can be removed from the body as a subassembly.
Re claim 16, Perkins et al. show a sprinkler (Fig. 4) assembly comprising:
an inlet (14) configured to receive water;
a body (12) supported by the inlet;
a nozzle (20) supported by the body and disposed downstream of the inlet, the nozzle being in fluid communication with the inlet and configured to direct the water out of the nozzle along an axis; and
a distribution plate (26) being coupled to the body to move with respect to the axis in at least a first rotational direction, the distribution plate having a plurality of channels (60) on a side of the distribution plate facing the nozzle, at least one channel of the plurality of channels defining a water path having an entrance (at the peak of 26) for receiving the water and an exit (at the annotated bottom) for distributing the water, the water path having a first curved shape, the at least one channel of the plurality of channels having sides (see annotated figure) and a bottom (see annotated figure) surface connecting the sides, the bottom surface defining a leading edge that curves along a length of the at least one channel.
Perkins et al. does not teach the leading edge having a second curved shape different from the first curved shape, the second curved shape moving closer to one of the sides in a direction towards the exit, and wherein the one of the sides has a degree of curvature that is different from a degree of curvature from another side of the at least one channel in the direction towards the exit.
However, Nelson et al. show a deflector (Figs. 9 & 10) with a channel (296) defining a water path having an entrance for receiving water, an exit for distributing the water, and a leading edge (294) and a pair of sides (292) along a common length of the at least one channel in a direction towards the exit of the at least one channel, the water path having a first curved shape so as to impart lateral forces on the deflector in the first rotational direction,
wherein the leading edge (294) of the at least one channel has a second curved shape along the common length different from the first curved shape (col. 13, lines 67-68 through col. 14, lines 1-2), the second curved shape moving closer to one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit, and
wherein the one of the pair of sides has a degree of curvature that is different from a degree of curvature from the another one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit (col. 13, lines 67-68 through col. 14, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the leading edge of Perkins et al. arranged in the same manner as the leading edge in Nelson et al. to create a more uniform distribution through the pattern area (Nelson – col. 14, lines 7-11).
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffin et al. (US Pat No 11,213,836 B2) in view of Nelson et al. (US Pat No Re. 33,823). (All annotations to Duffin unless specified otherwise)
Re claim 1, Duffin et al. show a sprinkler assembly (Fig. 8) comprising:
an inlet (8) configured to receive water;
a body (1) supported by the inlet and having a confinement structure (12);
a nozzle (4) supported by the body and disposed downstream of the inlet, the nozzle being in fluid communication with the inlet and configured to direct the water out of the nozzle along an axis;
a deflector assembly (5) having a base (2) and a distribution plate (17), the base being disposed int the confinement structure (12) to allow the deflector assembly to move with respect to the axis in at least a first rotational direction, the distribution plate (17) comprising a plurality of channels (see annotated figure 7) on a side of the distribution plate facing the nozzle, at least one channel of the plurality of channels (see annotated figure 7) defining a water path having an entrance (at the peak of 17) for receiving the water, an exit (at the lower edge) for distributing the water, and a leading edge (see annotated figure 7) and a pair of sides (see annotated figure 7) along a common length of the at least one channel in a direction towards the exit of the at least one channel, the water path having a first curved shape.
Duffin et al. does not teach wherein the leading edge of the at least one channel has a second curved shape along the common length different from the first curved shape, the second curved shape moving closer to one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit, and wherein the one of the pair of sides has a degree of curvature that is different from a degree of curvature from the another one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit.
However, Nelson et al. show a deflector (Figs. 9 & 10) with a channel (296) defining a water path having an entrance for receiving water, an exit for distributing the water, and a leading edge (294) and a pair of sides (292) along a common length of the at least one channel in a direction towards the exit of the at least one channel, the water path having a first curved shape so as to impart lateral forces on the deflector in the first rotational direction,
wherein the leading edge (294) of the at least one channel has a second curved shape along the common length different from the first curved shape (col. 13, lines 67-68 through col. 14, lines 1-2), the second curved shape moving closer to one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit, and
wherein the one of the pair of sides has a degree of curvature that is different from a degree of curvature from the another one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit (col. 13, lines 67-68 through col. 14, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the leading edge of Duffin et al. arranged in the same manner as the leading edge in Nelson et al. to create a more uniform distribution through the pattern area (Nelson – col. 14, lines 7-11).
PNG
media_image2.png
594
839
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Re claim 2, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show the at least one channel has a cross-sectional shape (see annotated figure 7) that is asymmetric across a vertical line passing through a vertex or bottom of the at least one channel.
Re claim 3, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show the at least one channel has a cross-sectional shape (see annotated figure 7) that is asymmetric across a vertical line passing through a midpoint of a width of the at least one channel as measured at a top of the at least one channel.
Re claim 4, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show a first distance measured between the leading edge (Nelson – Fig. 10, 294) and one of the one side of the pair of sides (see annotated figure 7) or the another one of the pair of sides (see annotated figure 7) at a first location along the at least one channel (see annotated figure 7) being different than a second distance measured between the leading edge (Nelson - 294) and the one of the one side of the pair of sides (see annotated figure 7) or the another one of the pair of sides (see annotated figure 7) at a second location along the at least one channel (see annotated figure 7), the first location being different than the second location (the distance will vary along the length of the channel).
Re claim 5, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show the distribution plate (Fig. 9, 17) further comprises a first region (see annotated figure 7 – “web”) and a second region (see annotated figure 7 – “channels”), a thickness of the first region being different than a thickness of the second region.
Re claims 6, 12 & 17, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show the distribution plate (Fig. 9, 17) further comprises a web (see annotated figure 7) located between adjacent channels of the plurality of channels, the web having a wall thickness that is different than a wall thickness of the adjacent channels.
Re claim 9, Duffin et al. show a sprinkler assembly (Fig. 8) comprising:
an inlet (8) configured to receive water;
a body (1) supported by the inlet and having a base retaining surface (12);
a nozzle (4) supported by the body and disposed downstream of the inlet, the nozzle being in fluid communication with the inlet and configured to direct the water out of the nozzle along an axis;
a deflector assembly (5) having a base (2) and a distribution plate (17), the base comprising a first side (at 10) and an opposite second side (at 14), the first side of the base being supported by the base retaining surface (12), the distribution plate (17) comprising a plurality of channels (see annotated figure 7) on a side of the distribution plate facing the nozzle, at least one channel of the plurality of channels (see annotated figure 7) defining a first water path (on one side of the annotated leading edge) for a small stream of the water and a second water path (on the other side of the annotated leading edge) for a large stream of the water along a common length of the at least one channel (see annotated figure 7) in a direction towards an exit of the at least one channel, the second water path having a first curved shape;
a leading edge (see annotated figure 7) of the at least one channel (see annotated figure 7).
Duffin et al. does not teach the leading edge of the at least one channel having a second curved shape along the common length different from the first curved shape, wherein the second curved shape is configured to move the small stream in a lateral direction away from a midpoint or center of the second water path and closer to a side of the at least one channel; and wherein the side of the at least one channel has a degree of curvature that is different from a degree of curvature from another side of the at least one channel in the direction towards the exit.
However, Nelson et al. show a deflector (Figs. 9 & 10) with a channel (296) defining a water path having an entrance for receiving water, an exit for distributing the water, and a leading edge (294) and a pair of sides (292) along a common length of the at least one channel in a direction towards the exit of the at least one channel, the water path having a first curved shape so as to impart lateral forces on the deflector in the first rotational direction,
wherein the leading edge (294) of the at least one channel has a second curved shape along the common length different from the first curved shape (col. 13, lines 67-68 through col. 14, lines 1-2), the second curved shape moving closer to one of the pair of sides while moving away from another one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit (Fig. 10, 294 curves toward 292), the second curved shape being sized to move flow of the water in a lateral direction away from a midpoint or center of the water path and closer to the one of the pair of sides than at the entrance; and wherein the side of the at least one channel has a degree of curvature that is different from a degree of curvature from the another side of the at least one channel in the direction towards the exit (col. 13, lines 67-68 through col. 14, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the leading edge of Duffin et al. arranged in the same manner as the leading edge in Nelson et al. to create a more uniform distribution through the pattern area (Nelson – col. 14, lines 7-11).
Re claim 10, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show the at least one channel comprises a radiused section (see annotated figure 7), the radiused section blending the side and the another side together in an off center arrangement relative to a cross-sectional shape of the at least one channel.
Re claim 11, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show near a center of the distribution plate the leading edge (Nelson – Fig. 10, 294) is centered relative to a midpoint of the at least one channel.
Re claim 15, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show a flanged bolt (13) configured to be supported by the body (1) and disposed between the nozzle (4) and the side of the distribution plate (17) facing the nozzle, the flanged bolt supporting the second side (at 14) of the base (2) so that the deflector assembly (5) can move with respect to the axis in at least the first rotational direction.
Re claim 16, Duffin et al. show a sprinkler assembly (Fig. 8) comprising:
an inlet (8) configured to receive water;
a body (1) supported by the inlet and having a base retaining surface (12);
a nozzle (4) supported by the body and disposed downstream of the inlet, the nozzle being in fluid communication with the inlet and configured to direct the water out of the nozzle along an axis;
a distribution plate (17) being coupled to the body to move with respect to the axis in at least a first rotational direction, the distribution plate having a plurality of channels (see annotated figure 7) on a side of the distribution plate facing the nozzle (4), at least one channel of the plurality of channels defining a water path having an entrance (at the peak of 17) for receiving the water and an exit (at the lower edge) for distributing the water, the water path having a first curved shape so as to impart lateral forces on the distribution plate (17) in the first rotational direction, the at least one channel of the plurality of channels having sides (see annotated figure 7) and a bottom surface (see annotated figure 7) connecting the sides, the bottom surface defining a leading edge (see annotated figure 7) that curves along a length of the at least one channel.
Duffin et al. does not teach the leading edge of the at least one channel having a second curved shape different from the first curved shape, the second curved shape moving closer to one of the sides in a direction towards the exit; and wherein the one of the sides has a degree of curvature that is different from a degree of curvature from another side of the at least one channel in the direction towards the exit.
However, Nelson et al. show a deflector (Figs. 9 & 10) with a channel (296) defining a water path having an entrance for receiving water, an exit for distributing the water, and a leading edge (294) and a pair of sides (292) along a common length of the at least one channel in a direction towards the exit of the at least one channel, the water path having a first curved shape so as to impart lateral forces on the deflector in the first rotational direction,
wherein the leading edge (294) of the at least one channel has a second curved shape along the common length different from the first curved shape (col. 13, lines 67-68 through col. 14, lines 1-2), the second curved shape moving closer to one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit, and
wherein the one of the pair of sides has a degree of curvature that is different from a degree of curvature from the another one of the pair of sides in the direction towards the exit (col. 13, lines 67-68 through col. 14, lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the leading edge of Duffin et al. arranged in the same manner as the leading edge in Nelson et al. to create a more uniform distribution through the pattern area (Nelson – col. 14, lines 7-11).
Re claim 20, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. show a base (2) having a first side (at 10) and an opposite second side (at 14), the first side of the base being supported by a base retaining surface (12) of the body; and
a flanged bolt (13) configured to be supported by the body (1) and disposed between the nozzle (4) and the side of the distribution plate (17) facing the nozzle, the flanged bolt supporting the second side (at 14) of the base (2) so that the deflector assembly (5) can move with respect to the axis in at least the first rotational direction.
Claims 13, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duffin et al. (US Pat No 11,213,836 B2) in view of Nelson et al. (US Pat No Re. 33,823) and further in view of Lawyer et al. (US Pub No 2018/0311684 A1).
Re claims 13 & 18, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. disclose all aspects of the claimed invention but does not teach a retainer configured to be inserted in the body and between the nozzle and the inlet, the retainer being configured to support a seal at least when disposed in the body, at least a portion of the nozzle engaging with the seal, the nozzle being tiltable to disengage from the seal when the nozzle and the retainer are both disposed in the body allowing the nozzle to be removed from the body independent from removing the retainer.
However, Lawyer et al. show a sprinkler assembly including a flanged bolt (Fig. 7, 26) configured to be supported by the body (12) between the nozzle (18) and the side of the distribution plate (20) facing the nozzle, the flanged bolt supporting the second side (54, 56) of the base (25) so that the deflector assembly can move with respect to the axis in one or both of a rotational and a tilting direction; and a retainer (68) configured to be inserted in the body (12) and between the nozzle (18) and the inlet (14), the retainer (68) being configured to support a seal (66) at least when disposed in the body, at least a portion (72) of the nozzle (18) engaging with the seal (66), the nozzle (18) being tiltable (Fig. 9) to disengage from the seal (66) when the nozzle (18) and the retainer (68) are both disposed in the body allowing the nozzle to be removed from the body independent from removing the retainer.
The substitution of one known element (the flanged bolt and nozzle as shown in Lawyer) for another (flanged bolt and nozzle as shown in Duffin) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the flanged bolt shown in Lawyer et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, support of the second side of the base in Duffin et al. to allow for movement of the deflector assembly.
Re claims 14 & 19, Duffin et al. as modified by Nelson et al. and Lawyer et al. show the nozzle (Lawyer – Fig. 7, 18) is engaged with the seal (Lawyer – 66), the nozzle and the retainer can be removed from the body as a subassembly (Lawyer - paragraphs 0048 and 0057).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,048,941. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same scope of structure is represented through both claim sets.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH whose telephone number is (571)270-3540. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8am-5pm.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
STEVEN MICHAEL CERNOCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/STEVEN M CERNOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights