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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/13/2026. These drawings are unacceptable.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:The “casegood furniture assembly comprises a second base having a spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to a width (W) of the second base, where (L+2W)/2 is equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member” (or L is equal to two-thirds of y+z) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Figures fail to disclose this spatial relationship as claimed and as described in paragraph 380. Figures 47A-49B, which show the relationship between L (the longest dimension of casegood assemblies 10) and the sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member, all show that L is substantially equal to x (the length of the first base) which is substantially equal to y+x.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 14-17 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first foot or the second foot" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 15-17 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. Pat. No. 7213885) in view of Sproule (U.S. Pat. No. 5064244).
With respect to claim 1, White discloses a furniture assembly system (Figs. 6B-6J) comprising: a first furniture assembly (Fig. 1, furniture assembly 10) comprising a first base (base 12), a first upright member (transverse member 14), and a coupler (Fig. 5A, coupler 15); an adjacent furniture assembly (Figs. 6E-6G show an “adjacent” right-side furniture assembly 10 coupled to the first/left side furniture assembly 10); and a foot coupler (Fig. 4, foot coupler 34a) having a plurality of apertures (74a-d), the plurality of apertures including a first and a second aperture (first aperture 74a and second aperture 74d), wherein the plurality of apertures are spaced to receive feet of any of the first base (base 12), the first upright member (transverse member 14), and the adjacent furniture assembly (“adjacent” right-side furniture assembly 10), such that the foot coupler (foot coupler 34a) can mechanically couple each of the first base, the first upright member, and the adjacent furniture assembly in interchangeable combinations (Col. 11, lines 36, 37, “Apertures 74a-b are sized and configured to receive a foot of base 12” and lines 62-65, “Foot coupler 34a has four apertures 74a-d, enabling foot coupler 34a to be utilized in connection with coupling a base 12 to multiple transverse members 14 and/or bases 12 to form a furniture assembly as shown in FIGS. 6c-6j”).
White fails to disclose the adjacent furniture assembly is a casegood furniture assembly.
Sproule discloses a casegood furniture assembly (Fig. 2, console unit 24), adjacent to a first furniture assembly (reclining seat 14), the casegood furniture assembly comprising a body member (Fig. 4, storage bin 48) and an upper member (table top 40), wherein the body member defines a top opening to an internal compartment (Fig. 4 shows storage bin 48 has an open top side) and a lateral opening to the internal compartment (Col. 3, lines 12-15, "a drawer or cabinet door (neither shown) may be constructed upon the front face 44 of the center console 24 for alternative access to the storage space" therefore the drawer/door would cover a lateral opening of the storage bin 48), and wherein the upper member is removably coupled to the body member to selectively close the top opening (table top 40 pivots upward to open storage bin 48).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adjacent furniture assembly of White such that it is a console unit having top and front opening panels, as taught by Sproule, in order for users to have an easily accessible storage space for placing and storing items, such as drinks or books, when seated in the chair. It is further noted that modular seating arrangements including console tables situated between the seats are known in the art as made evident by US20020195848, US20130255044, US2716775, US7806474, US5630644, and US3093410.
With respect to claim 2, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Sproule) further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (console unit 24) comprises one of a table, a coffee table, a side table, an end table, a cabinet, a game table, a dresser, a chest, a credenza, in-line table, corner table, combinations or modifications thereof (Console unit 24 has a table top 40 and an open storage bin 48 body with a drawer or cabinet door and is therefore table/storage cabinet).
With respect to claim 3, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (White) further discloses a plurality of first furniture assemblies and a plurality of second furniture assemblies (see annotated Fig. 6G below, two left-side first furniture assemblies 10 each having a base 12 and a transverse member 14, as well as two right-side second furniture assemblies each having a base 12 and a transverse member 14, while the central “adjacent” furniture assembly has been modified by Sproule as taught in claim 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6G
With respect to claim 4, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (White) further discloses a wherein the first base (Fig. 1, base 12) and the first upright member (transverse member 14) have a defined spatial relationship, wherein a length (x) of the first base is substantially equal to the sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member (Col. 5, lines 47-49, “the length (x) of base 12 is substantially equal to the sum of the width (y) of base 12 and the width (z) of transverse member 14”).
With respect to claim 5, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (see annotated Fig. 6G above, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Sproule to be a console unit) comprises a second base (Sproule, Fig. 2, base panels of console unit 24) having a spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member (see annotated Fig. 6G above, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Sproule to be a console unit, is a square shape with a Length (L) and Width (W) identical to the first furniture assembly, where x=y+z as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, the Length of the adjacent furniture assembly/console unit would also be equal to the sum of the width of the first base and the width of the first transverse member, or L=y+z).
With respect to claim 6, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein the casegood furniture assembly comprises a second base having a spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to a width (W) of the second base, where (L+2W)/2 is equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify a length of the console unit of White in view of Sproule such that it has a length of two-thirds the sum of y+z, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantages of various dimensions or proportions of the casegood assembly or console unit in comparison the seat module, such as providing a smaller casegood assembly/console unit to fit within a smaller space or smaller room, or for providing space for other furniture/accessories commonly provided near a furniture assembly such as a floor lamp disposed behind the casegood assembly or console unit.
With respect to claim 9, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. Sproule further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (console unit 24) comprises a second base (base panels of console unit 24 ) having a spatial relationship, wherein a width (W) of the second base is substantially equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and the width (z) of the first upright member dividing by two, such as W=(y+z)/2 (Fig. 1 shows the width (the shorter side-to-side dimension) of console unit 24 is reasonably equal to half the length (the front-to-back dimension) of reclining seat 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when modifying the adjacent furniture assembly of White to be a console unit, as taught in claim 1, to further modify the dimensions of the console unit such that its width is half the length of a furniture assembly, in order to form a smaller/more compact furniture system for smaller rooms or spaces.
With respect to claim 10, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (see annotated Figs. 6E and 6F below, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White including the right-most transverse member 14, as modified by Sproule to be a console unit) comprises a second base (Sproule, Fig. 2, base panels of console unit 24) having a spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the second base is substantially equal to a sum of a length (x) of the first base and the width (z) of the first upright member (see annotated Figs. 6E and 6F below, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Sproule to be a console unit has a length (L) that is equal to x+z as defined in claim 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
543
1071
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 6E & 6F
With respect to claim 11, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the casegood furniture assembly (see annotated Fig. 6G below, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Sproule to be a console unit) comprises a second base (Sproule, Fig. 2, base panels of console unit 24) having a spatial relationship, wherein a width (W) of the second base is substantially equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and the width (z) of the first upright member (see annotated Fig. 6G above, the “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Sproule to be a console unit, is a square shape with a Length (L) and Width (W) identical to the first furniture assembly, where x=y+z as shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, the Width of the adjacent furniture assembly/table unit would also be equal to the sum of the width of the first base and the width of the first transverse member, or W=y+z).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6G
With respect to claim 13, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Sproule) further discloses wherein the top opening is disposed between a first side, a second side, a back, and a front of the body member (Figs. 2 and 4 show that the open top side of storage bin 48 is located within left, right, front, and back panels of the storage bin 48).
With respect to claim 14, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (White) further discloses wherein a distance between a center of one of a first foot or a second foot (White, Fig. 2, foot 20b of furniture assembly 10 or foot 20a of “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Sproule to be a console unit) and one of the first side, the second side, the back, or the front is an offset distance (White, Fig. 5B, the feet 20a and 20b are offset from the sides of their respective base, therefore either foot would be offset from a side, back, or front of the of “adjacent” furniture assembly of White, as modified by Sproule to be a console unit when arranged next to each other as shown in Fig. 6G).
With respect to claim 19, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (Sproule) further discloses wherein the upper member is reversible or non-reversible (table top 40 is hinged to the console unit 24 and would therefore be non-reversible).
Claims 12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White (U.S. Pat. No. 7213885) in view of Sproule (U.S. Pat. No. 5064244) in further view of Hanson (U.S. Pub. No. 20110233976).
With respect to claim 12, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination (White) further discloses the foot coupler (foot coupler 34a) comprises a first side and a second side (see annotated Fig. 4), the first aperture (74a) being disposed towards a corner where the first side and the second side meet (see annotated Fig. 4), a distance of the first aperture (74a) is located a distance away from the back of the first transverse member that is equal to half the width of the transverse member (see Fig. 5, foot coupler 35 which has identical hole spacing as foot couplers 34 and 34a of Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
763
687
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4
The combination fails to disclose a distance a center of the first aperture to one of the first side or the second side being defined by the equation o=z/2 where z is a width of the upright member.
Hanson discloses a coupler (Fig. 6, base coupler 120) comprises a first side and a second side (see annotated Fig. 6 below), the first aperture (top-left hole 168) being disposed towards a corner where the first side and the second side meet (see annotated Fig. 6 below), a distance a center of the first aperture (top-left hole 168) to one of the first side or the second side being defined by the equation o=z/2 where z is a width of the upright member (Fig. 8 shows the center of top-left hole 168 is located a distance from the first side of base coupler 120 that is equal to half the width of the upright box 102. Note that the base coupler 120 extends along the entirety of upright box 102 and sits flush with the upright box 102).
PNG
media_image4.png
384
620
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot coupler of White in view of Sproule such that the coupler is perfectly square with even and proportionate spacing between the apertures and the coupler extends along the entirety of the transverse member (resulting in the center of the aperture at a distance away from the first side equal to z/2 where z is a width of the transverse member), as taught by Hanson, with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide better support across the entire width of the transverse member rather than only a portion of the transverse member. This arrangement would further provide easier assembly to a user by not requiring the coupler to be placed at a specific orientation in order to couple the furniture units. For example, the square coupler can be rotated 90, 180, or 270 degrees and will still be able to couple the furniture units together.
With respect to claim 15, White in view of Sproule discloses the limitation set forth above except wherein a distance (A) between a center of the first aperture and a center of the second aperture is substantially equal to twice an offset distance (o).
Hanson discloses a coupler (Fig. 6, base coupler 120) wherein a distance (A) between a center of the first aperture (top-left hole 168) and a center of the second aperture (top-right hole 168) is substantially equal to twice an offset distance (Fig. 8, the distance from top-left hole 168 to the top-right hole 168 is clearly shown as being twice the distance from the top-left hole 168 to the left edge of the piece of furniture).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the foot coupler of White in view of Sproule such that the coupler is perfectly square with even and proportionate spacing between the apertures (resulting in aperture spacing that is twice the length of the distance between an aperture and a furniture’s edge), as taught by Hanson, in order in order to provide support across a greater portion of a transverse member, base, or an adjacent/storage furniture unit. This arrangement would further provide easier assembly to a user by not requiring the coupler to be placed at a specific orientation in order to couple the furniture units. For example, the square coupler can be rotated 90, 180, or 270 degrees and will still be able to couple the furniture units together.
With respect to claim 16, White in view of Sproule in further view of Hanson discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the foot coupler (White, Fig. 4, foot coupler 34a) comprises a third aperture (74b) and a fourth aperture (74c), a center of the third aperture and a center of the fourth aperture being separated by the distance (A) (the foot coupler 34a as modified by Hanson would result in spacing between third and fourth apertures 74b,74c that is equal to the spacing between first and second apertures 74a,74d).
With respect to claim 17, White in view of Sproule in further view of Hanson discloses the limitation set forth above. The combination further discloses wherein the center of the second aperture (White, aperture 74d) and the center of the third aperture (74b) are separated by a distance (A) (the foot coupler 34a as modified by Hanson would result in spacing between second and third apertures 74d,74b that is equal to the spacing between first and second apertures 74a,74d).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, 21-22, 91, and 92 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 7 would be allowable for disclosing the casegood furniture assembly comprises two second bases have a collective spatial relationship, wherein a length (L) of the two second bases is substantially equal to two times a width (W) of the two second bases, and where two times the width (W) is equal to a sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member. Sproule discloses a console unit (24) has a length that is reasonable twice its width, and the length (represented by L or 2W) is equal to a front-to-back dimension of the adjacent reclining seat (14). However, neither White nor Sproule discloses two bases of a casegood assembly with this collective spatial relationship. Based on the configuration of White in view of Sproule it would be improper hindsight to further modify the furniture system to further include an addition casegood base with this defined spatial relationship.
Claim 8 would be allowable for similar reasons as claim 7.
Claim 21 would be allowable for disclosing another casegood furniture assembly, wherein the casegood furniture assembly and the another casegood furniture assembly are being joined together by a u-shaped coupler. White in view of Sproule fails to disclose an additional casegood assembly joined to the first casegood assembly (console unit 24). The combination also fails to disclose casegood assemblies being coupled together by a u-shaped coupler. Based on the configuration of White in view of Sproule it would be improper hindsight to further modify the furniture system to further include an additional casegood assembly and a u-shaped coupler.
Claim 22 would be allowable for depending from claim 21.
Claim 91 would allowable for disclosing first and second casegood furniture assemblies positioned adjacent to each other such that a combined width of the first casegood furniture assembly and the second casegood furniture assembly is substantially equal to a sum of a width of the first base and a width of the first upright member. Neither White nor Sproule, alone or in combination, discloses a second casegood assembly positioned adjacent to the first casegood assembly. Based on the configuration of White in view of Sproule it would be improper hindsight to further modify the furniture system to further include an additional casegood assembly wherein the first and second casegood assemblies have this defined spatial relationship.
Claim 92 would be allowable for similar reasons as claim 91, as well as for disclosing a u-shaped coupler engages with a hole of the first casegood furniture assembly and a panel of the second casegood furniture assembly. White in view of Sproule fails to disclose the second casegood furniture assembly and further fails to disclose a u-shaped coupler engaged with a hole/panel of adjacent casegood assemblies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Drawing Objections
The drawing objections are maintained because all corrections to the drawings have not been made.
Regarding the drawing objection related to the language of claim 6, Applicant argues that the spatial relationship L is approximately or equal to two-thirds of (y+z) is shown in the drawings but fails to point out the Figure that shows this relationship. The Examiner notes Figures 47A-49B, which show the relationship between L (the longest dimension of casegood assemblies 10) and the sum of a width (y) of the first base and a width (z) of the first upright member, all show that L is substantially equal to x (the length of the first base) which is substantially equal to y+x.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103
The language of Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation of the casegood furniture assembly having a body member defining a top and a lateral opening to an internal compartment, and an upper member removably coupled to the body member to selectively close the top opening, overcoming the 103 rejection over White (U.S. Pat. No. 7213885) in view of Seitz (U.S. Pub. No. 20020195848) made in the non-final rejection (2/13/2026).
Although the Examiner agrees that none of the references cited in the non-final rejection discloses the newly added limitations of claim 1, Sproule (US Pat. No. 5064244) does. As mapped in the rejection above, Sproule discloses a casegood furniture assembly (console unit 24) for a furniture assembly system (Fig. 2). The console unit 24 has a body member defining a top opening (storage bin 48 opens upwardly) and a lateral opening (Col. 3 12-15, “a drawer or cabinet door (neither shown) may be constructed upon the front face 44 of the center console 24 for alternative access to the storage space” therefore there is an opening covered by the drawer/cabinet door).
On pages 13-14, Applicant states that White does not disclose or suggest a foot coupler having apertures for receiving feet of a base, an upright member, and a casegood furniture assembly in interchangeable combinations. Applicant argues that the foot coupler of White is not disclosed as being configured “for universal interoperability across different component types”. The Examiner disagrees. The foot couplers (34, 35) are disclosed as being adapted to receive the feet of transverse member 14 and base 12 in order to couple the transverse member and base together in a seat and backrest assembly as shown in Fig. 5B, and to further couple this unit to additional transverse members which may act as armrests as shown in Fig. 6C (Col. 11 line 62-Col. 12, line 11). Additionally, foot couplers (34, 35) are used to further couple base 12 to another base 12 (Col. 12, lines 49-63) in order to secure together several bases of different configurations shown in Figs. 6A-6J to form furniture systems which contain a variety of units such as end seats, armless seats, ottomans/chaise lounges, and corner seats. Therefore, the foot couplers are configured for interoperability across different components.
While White does not disclose one of those components as being a “casegood” furniture assembly, it would be obvious to modify one of the many base components 12 to be a casegood unit, such as a console table/cabinet unit, since this is a normal and common configuration for sectional/modular sofas. Further, a console table/cabinet unit would allow for storage for items which users of a furniture assembly would commonly use, such as books, pillows, or blankets and would therefore be a more useful and marketable furniture assembly configuration.
The casegood unit of Sproule, which teaches top/lateral opening, is one example of a console table/cabinet unit being included on a sectional/modular sofa. In combination, White in view of Sproule discloses all the limitations of amended Claim 1.
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 ELIZABETH IRENE ARTALEJO whose telephone number is (571)272-4292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-6.
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, Daniel Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/E.I.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3637
/DANIEL J TROY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights