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 of Species II: Figures 9-11 and 15A and Species A: Figures 6-8 and 14a in the reply filed on August 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant states that claims 18-24, 26-29, and 31-37 are readable on the elected Species II and Species A. The examiner agrees that these claims are readable on the two elected Species, and therefore, claims 25 and 30 are withdrawn and the examination of claims 18-24, 26-29, and 31-37 is set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The examiner would like to note that copies of the NPL listed on the IDS filed August 8, 2024 were included in parent application 15/466,932.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claim 18, the preamble recites “a handle,” however, the body of the claim contains positive recitations of a lockset and its components, a primary actuator and a secondary actuator, to define the structure and operation of the handle. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the handle or the handle in combination with the lockset and its components. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claim is drawn to the combination and the claim, and its dependents, will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims (see claim objections below). If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitation of the combination.
In regards to claim 28, the preamble recites “a system,” however, the body of the claim contains positive recitations of a lockset and its components, a primary actuator, a support spindle, and a secondary actuator, to define the structure and operation of the handle(s) of the system. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether applicant intends to claim the subcombination of the system with the first and second handles or the system with the first and second handles in combination with the lockset and its components. In formulating an evaluation on the merits, the examiner is considering that the claim is drawn to the combination and the claim, and its dependents, will be rejected accordingly. If applicant indicates by amendment that the combination claim is the intention, the language of the preamble should be made consistent with the language of the body of the claims (see claim objections below). If the intent is to claim the subcombination, then the body of the claim must be amended to remove positive recitation of the combination.
Claim Objections
Claims 18, 24, 27-29, 32, 33, 34, and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 18, line 1, the phrase “A handle, comprising” should be changed to “A handle in combination with a lockset, the handle comprising,” in line 5, the phrase “a lockset” should be changed to “the lockset,” and in line 6, the phrase “a primary actuator” should be changed to “the primary actuator.”
In regards to claim 24, line 2, the phrase “a spline” should be changed to “at least one spline.”
In regards to claim 27, line 4, the phrase “a primary actuator and a secondary actuator” should be changed to “the primary actuator and the secondary actuator,” and in lines 8 and 9, the limitation “wherein each of the first handle and the second handle is operable to selectively enable actuation of the secondary actuator” should be removed.
In regards to claim 28, line 1, the phrase “A system, comprising” should be changed to “A system in combination with a lockset, the system comprising,” in line 2, the phrase “a plurality of handles including a first handle and a second handle, each handle” should be changed to “a first handle and a second handle, each of the first handle and the second handle,” and in lines 6 and 8, each instance of the phrase “each handle” should be changed to “each of the first handle and the second handle.”
In regards to claim 29, line 2, the phrase “each handle” should be changed to “each of the first handle and the second handle.”
In regards to claim 32, lines 4-7 should read as follows: “wherein a dimension of the inner perimeter of the proximal section is smaller than a dimension of the inner perimeter of the intermediate section; and wherein the dimension of the inner perimeter of the intermediate section is smaller than a dimension of the inner perimeter of the distal section.”
In regards to claim 33, line 1, the phrase “further comprising the lockset” should be removed, in line 5, the phrase “of each handle” should be changed to “of each of the first handle and the second handle,” in line 7, the phrase “of each handle” should be changed to “of each of the first handle and the second handle,” and in lines 8-10, the limitation “wherein the secondary actuator is configured for rotational coupling with the active section of the first handle, and wherein the secondary actuator is inoperable to rotationally couple with the idle section of the second handle” should be removed, since claim 28 has been examined as drawn to the combination and since claim 28 already recites similar limitations.
In regards to claim 34, line 2, the phrase “selecting one of a first handle or a second handle” should be changed to “providing a first handle and a second handle; selecting one of the first handle and the second handle,” in line 6, the phrase “the first handle comprises an idle section” should be changed to “the second handle comprises an idle section,” and lines 7-15 should read as follows: “installing the selected one of the first handle and the second handle to a lockset comprising a primary actuator, a support spindle, and a secondary actuator, wherein installing the selected one of the first handle and the second handle comprises: rotationally coupling the proximal section of the selected one of the first handle and the second handle; and engaging the intermediate section of the selected one of the first handle and the second handle with the support spindle; wherein, when the selected one of the first handle and the second handle is the first handle, installing the first handle comprises rotationally coupling the active section with the secondary actuator; and wherein, when the selected one of the first handle and the second handle is the second handle, installing the second handle comprises maintaining the idle section rotationally decoupled from the secondary actuator.”
In regards to claim 37, the claim should read as follows after the preamble: further comprising rotating the selected one of the first handle and the second handle when installed to the lockset; wherein, when the first handle is installed to the lockset, rotating the first handle causes a corresponding rotation of the secondary actuator; and wherein, when the second handle is installed to the lockset, the secondary actuator remains stationary during rotation of the second handle.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 18-24, 26, 27-29, and 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 18, the relationship between the “primary actuator” recited in line 6 and the “primary actuator” recited in line 5 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification that the “primary actuator” of line 6 is equivalent to the “primary actuator” of line 5, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 19, the claim language suggests that the proximal opening longitudinal cross-section is located or fitted within the intermediate opening longitudinal cross-section, and that the intermediate opening longitudinal cross-section is located or fitted within the distal opening longitudinal cross-section. The claim language does not coincide with the specification. It is understood from the specification that the proximal opening longitudinal cross-section is located adjacent to the intermediate opening longitudinal cross-section, and the intermediate opening longitudinal cross-section is located adjacent the distal opening longitudinal cross-section along the longitudinal rotational axis of the handle. It seems as though the claim might be referring to the sizes of the cross-sections relative to one another, however, the language of claim suggests that the cross-sections are structurally fitted within one another. The claim will be examined as referring to a size of each of the cross-sections.
In regards to claim 24, it is understood from the specification that the secondary actuator has the same number of splines as the number of recesses of the active section, and therefore, claim 24 must recite “at least one spline” so as to coincide with the language of claim 18. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 27, the relationship between the “primary actuator” of claim 27 and the “primary actuator” of claim 18 is unclear from the claim language, and the relationship between the “secondary actuator” of claim 27 and the “secondary actuator” of claim 18 is unclear from the claim language. It is understood from the specification and the interpretation of claim 18, as set forth in Paragraph 4 of the current Office Action, that the “primary actuator” of claim 27 is equivalent to the “primary actuator” of claim 18 and that the “secondary actuator” of claim 27 is equivalent to the “secondary actuator” of claim 18, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 27, it is unclear how the second handle is “inoperable to actuate the secondary actuator” as recited in line 7 of the claim, but is also “operable to selectively enable the actuation of the secondary actuator” as recited in lines 8 and 9 of the claim. It is suggested that the limitation of lines 8 and 9 be removed from the claim, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 28, it is unclear how the system can include more than a first handle and a second handle, as suggested by the phrase “a plurality of handles including a first handle and second handle.” Furthermore, it is unclear to which “handles” the phrase “each handle” refers, since the claim recites “a plurality of handles including a first handle and a second handle,” which suggests that the system can include more than the first and second handles, but that the specification and drawings only provide support for first and second handles, with the first and second handles having the grasp portion, the proximal section, and the intermediate section. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 28, the claim language suggests that both the first handle and the second handle are coupled with the lockset simultaneously, when it is understood from the specification that a handle is selected from the first handle and the second handle to be installed on the lockset, such that the recited coupling and engagement can occur. For examination purposes, the claim will be examined as written only with the language set forth in the claim objections above, which does not alleviate this issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
In regards to claim 32, the phrase “fits within” suggests that the inner perimeter of the proximal section is nested within the inner perimeter of the intermediate section and that the inner perimeter of the intermediate section is nested within the inner perimeter of the distal section, which is not supported by the specification and drawings. It appears that the claim is referring to a dimension of the inner perimeter of the proximal section being smaller than the inner perimeter of the intermediate section and that a dimension of the inner perimeter of the intermediate section is smaller than a dimension of the inner perimeter of the distal end, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 34, the phrase “selecting one of a first handle or a second handle” suggests that the claim only requires a first handle or a second handle, when the remainer of the claim positively recites both the first and second handles. Furthermore, the relationship between the “selected handle” in lines 11 and 13 and the respective first handle and the second handle is unclear from the claim language. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined as requiring both the first handle and the second handle and has been examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
In regards to claim 34, it is unclear how the distal section of the first handle can include an active section and an idle section, as recited in lines 5 and 6 of the claim. It is understood from the specification that the distal section of the first handle comprises an active section and that the distal section of the second handle comprises an idle section, and will be examined as such. See claim objections above.
In regards to claim 37, the relationship between the recited “installed handle” and the first and second handles is unclear. For examination purposes, the claim has been examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above, which provides a clear connection between the installed handle and the first and second handles.
In regards to claims 20-23, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35, and 36, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because they depend from claims 18, 28, and 34.
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.
Claim(s) 28, 29, and 31-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomas (US-0934702).
In regards to claim 28, Thomas discloses a system in combination with a lockset (Figure 1), the system comprising: a first handle 1 and a second handle 25, each of the first handle and the second handle comprising a grasp portion (see Figure 1 below), a proximal section (see Figure 1 below) positioned adjacent the grasp portion, a distal section (see Figure 1 below), and an intermediate section (see Figure 1 below) positioned between the proximal section and the distal section; wherein the proximal section of each of the first handle and the second handle is configured for rotational coupling with a primary actuator 17 of the lockset (rotationally coupled via components 20, 28, and 24, Figure 1); wherein the intermediate section of each of the first handle and the second handle is configured for engagement with a support spindle 10 of the lockset (the intermediate section of the first handle being engaged with the support spindle via component 20, as shown in Figure 1, and the intermediate section of the second handle being engaged with the support via components 27, 24, 17, and 20, as shown in Figure 1); wherein the distal section of the first handle comprises an active section configured for rotational coupling with a secondary actuator 20 of the lockset (the distal end of the first handle is considered as an active section because the distal end is threadingly engaged with the secondary actuator 20, Figure 1); and wherein the distal section of the second handle comprises an idle section that is not operable to be rotationally coupled with the secondary actuator (the distal section of the second handle is considered as an idle section because it is not threadingly engaged with the secondary actuator, so as to be directly rotationally coupled with the secondary actuator, the distal end of the second handle is coupled to the secondary actuator via component 24 in Figure 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
697
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 29, Thomas discloses that the intermediate section of each of the first handle and the second handle includes a pair of flats (two of the flat surfaces of the V-shapes of the threads, Figure 1).
In regards to claim 31, Thomas discloses that each intermediate section further comprises a movable coupling member (the movable coupling member of the first handle is considered as component 10, since it is movable during assembly of the device, and the movable coupling member of the second handle is considered as 28, since it is movable during assembly of the device).
In regards to claim 32, Thomas discloses that each of the proximal section, the intermediate section, and the distal section comprises a corresponding and respective inner perimeter (see Figure 1 on Page 12 of the current Office Action); wherein a dimension of the inner perimeter of the proximal section is smaller than a dimension of the inner perimeter of the intermediate section (the dimension of the inner perimeter of the proximal section being the dimension of the small section of threaded opening in Figure 1 on Page 12 of the current Office Action, with the dimension being the distance between vertexes of oppositely located threads, and the dimension of the inner perimeter of the intermediate section being the distance between the lands of oppositely located threads, which is a larger distance than between oppositely located vertexes of the dimension of the proximal section; and wherein the dimension of the inner perimeter of the intermediate section is smaller than a dimension of the inner perimeter of the distal section (the dimension of the inner perimeter of each of the distal sections being the diameter of the end surfaces shown in Figure 1 on Page 12 of the current Office Action, which extend beyond the threaded openings, and is therefore larger than dimensions within the threaded openings, and is considered as an inner perimeter because the end surfaces have associated perimeters and are located within the confines of the device, Figure 1).
In regards to claim 33, Thomas discloses that the lockset comprises: a base 7; the primary actuator rotatably mounted to the base (Figure 1), and wherein the primary actuator is configured for rotational coupling with the proximal section of each of the first handle and the second handle (indirect rotational coupling, Figure 1); the support spindle rotatably mounted to the base (rotatably mounted via other components, Figure 1), and wherein the support spindle is configured for engagement with the intermediate section of each of the first handle and the second handle (indirect engagement, Figure 1); and the secondary actuator rotatably mounted to the base (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 34, Thomas discloses a method, comprising: providing a first handle 25 and a second handle 1; selecting one of the first handle and the second handle (selecting during assembly of the device), wherein each of the first handle and the second handle comprises a grasp portion (see Figure 1 on Page 12 of the current Office Action), a proximal section (see Figure 1 on Page 12 of the current Office Action) positioned adjacent the grasp portion, a distal section (see Figure 1 on Page 12 of the current Office Action), and an intermediate section (see Figure 1 on Page 12 of the current Office Action) positioned between the proximal section and the distal section, wherein the distal section of the first handle comprises an active section (the distal end of the first handle is considered as an active section because the distal end is can cause rotation of a secondary actuator 22 to cause lock hub 13 to rotate), and wherein the distal section of the second handle comprises an idle section (the distal section of the second handle is considered as an idle section because it only causes the rotation of the lock hub if element 24 is moved to engage with perforation 21, such that rotation of the second handle causes rotation of the lock hub 13, Page 2, lines 45-68); installing the selected one of the first handle and the second handle to a lockset (during the assembly of the device, a user can select one of the first and second handles to start with during the assembly process) comprising a primary actuator 17, a support spindle 10, and a secondary actuator 22, wherein installing the selected one of the first handle and the second handle comprises: rotationally coupling the proximal section of the selected one of the first handle and the second handle with the primary actuator (the proximal sections of both the first handle and the second handle are rotationally coupled indirectly to the primary actuator, Figure 1); and engaging the intermediate section of the selected one of the first handle and the second handle with the support spindle (the intermediate section of both of the first handle and the second handle are indirectly engaged with the support spindle, Figure 1); wherein, when the selected one of the first handle and the second is the first handle, installing the first handle comprises rotationally coupling the active section with the secondary actuator (Figure 1); and wherein, when the selected one of the first handle and the second handle is the second handle, installing the second handle comprises maintaining the idle section rotationally decoupled from the secondary actuator (the idle section is rotationally decoupled until element 24 is moved to engage with perforation 21, Page 2, lines 45-68).
In regards to claim 35, Thomas discloses that engaging the intermediate section with the support spindle comprises engaging a coupling member with the support spindle (engaging coupling member 12 of the second handle directly with the support spindle and coupling member 27 of the first handle with the support spindle via components 24, 17, and 20, Figure 1).
In regards to claim 36, Thomas discloses that engaging the intermediate section with the support spindle comprises rotationally coupling the intermediate section with the support spindle (the intermediates sections of both the first handle and the second handle are indirectly rotationally coupled to the support spindle, Figure 1).
In regards to claim 37, Thomas discloses that rotating the selected one of the first handle and the second handle when installed to the lockset (a user can select one of the handles to rotate when installed); wherein, when the first handle is installed to the lockset, rotating the first handle causes a corresponding rotation of the secondary actuator (Figure 1); and wherein, when the second handle is installed to the lockset, the secondary actuator remains stationary during rotation of the second handle (the secondary actuator remains stationary during rotation of the second handle if element 24 has not been moved to provide the coupling between the second handle and the secondary actuator, Page 2, lines 45-68).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 18-24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnutsch et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0275544) in view of Ou et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0058096).
In regards to claim 18, Karnutsch et al. discloses a handle 20 in combination with a lockset, the handle comprising: a manually graspable portion 21 extending laterally outward from a longitudinal rotational axis D of the handle; a proximal section (equivalent to the primary actuating section in Figure 1 below) positioned adjacent the manually graspable portion, wherein the proximal section is configured for rotational coupling with a primary actuator 30 of the lockset and includes a proximal opening 231 structured to receive a portion of the primary actuator of the lockset (Figure 1), wherein the proximal opening has a proximal opening longitudinal cross-section (Figure 1), and wherein the proximal opening longitudinal cross-section is non-circular (Paragraphs 43 and 44); a distal section (equivalent to the secondary actuating section in Figure 1 below) including a distal opening (opening forming the distal section, Figure 1) having a distal opening longitudinal cross-section (Figure 1), wherein the distal section comprises an active section (the distal section is considered to comprise an active section since it includes support spindle 80, the structure of which actively engages the secondary actuator 50); wherein the active section is configured for rotational coupling with a secondary actuator 50 of the lockset (Figure 1), wherein the distal opening longitudinal cross-section of the active section is non-circular (non-circular because it is shaped to receive the support spindle 80, which is non-circular, Figure 2) and includes at least one recess 89 (includes the at least one recess when the support spindle is assembled to the active section, Figure 1); and an intermediate section (equivalent to the load bearing section in Figure 1 below) positioned between the proximal section and the distal section, wherein the intermediate section is configured for rotational coupling with a support spindle 80 of the lockset (Figure 1) and includes an intermediate opening structured to receive a portion of the support spindle (Figure 1), and wherein the intermediate opening has an intermediate opening longitudinal cross-section (Figure 1). Karnutsch et al. fails to disclose an aperture in communication with the intermediate opening, and a coupling member received in the aperture, wherein the coupling member is operable to engage the support spindle to rotationally couple the handle with the support spindle. Ou et al. teaches a handle 14 having an aperture (equivalent to the first aperture in the Portion of Figure 4 above) in communication with an intermediate opening (equivalent to the first opening in the Portion of Figure 4 above), and a coupling member 56 received in the aperture (Figure 4), wherein the coupling member is operable to engage a component 80i to rotationally couple the handle with component 80i. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant's invention to include an aperture and a coupling member, with reasonable expectation of success, so as to aid in holding the support spindle within the intermediate section of the handle.
PNG
media_image2.png
835
1088
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 19, Karnutsch et al. discloses that the proximal opening longitudinal cross-section is smaller than the intermediate opening longitudinal cross- section (apparent from Figure 1); and wherein the intermediate opening longitudinal cross-section is smaller than the distal opening longitudinal cross-section (apparent from Figure 1).
In regards to claim 20, Karnutsch et al. discloses a shank 22, wherein the shank extends longitudinally from the manually graspable portion and includes the intermediate section and the distal section (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 21, Karnutsch et al. discloses that the intermediate opening longitudinal cross-section is non-circular (Figure 1) and includes a pair of flats (flats in cross-section, see Figure 1 on Page 19 of the current Office Action).
In regards to claim 22, Karnutsch et al. discloses that the flats are offset from one another at an oblique angle (Figure 1).
In regards to claim 23, Karnutsch et al. discloses that the manually graspable portion comprises a lever (Figure 1), and wherein the distal section comprises the active section.
In regards to claim 24, Karnutsch et al. discloses that the at least one recess is operable to receive at least one spline (the protruding portions around the circumference of the secondary actuator, with each spline formed between adjacent grooves 57, Figure 3).
In regards to claim 26, Ou et al. teaches that the coupling member comprises a set screw (the coupling member 56 is considered as set screw since it is a small fastener that is screwed or threaded into the aperture to hold one component against another component).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The examiner would like to note that claim 27 was examined with the language set forth in the claim objections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although the references of record show some features similar to those of applicant’s device, the prior art fails to teach or make obvious the invention of claim 27.
In regards to claim 27, Karnutsch et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0275544) fails to disclose an interchangeable handle set comprising a second handle according to claim 18, wherein the distal section of the second handle comprises the idle section such that the second handle, when installed to the lockset, is operable to actuate the primary actuator and is inoperably to actuate the secondary actuator. The examiner can find no motivation to modify the device of Karnutsch et al. without employing improper hindsight reasoning and without destroying the intended structure and operation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, James (US-3602539) discloses an interchangeable handle set (Figures 1 and 4) engaging with a spindle 16 using similar connection mechanisms (Figures 3 and 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSON MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2219. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM to 3 PM.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/ALYSON M MERLINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675 October 14, 2026
