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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 2022/0232779 A1) in view of McRae (US 2018/0275330 A1) and O’Neal (US 6,286,252).
Regarding claim 1, Suarez teaches an environmental-friendly luminous flowerpot (Fig. 1, “apparatus” 10), comprising:
a pot body (Fig. 1, body of “container” 20);
one or more light-emitting elements disposed inside the pot body (Fig. 1 shows two “lighting device” 30 inside body of “container” 20);
a solar device (Figs. 1-3, “power supply” 40; “The power supply 40, depicted as a solar unit, includes a photovoltaic (PV) panel 44 which is positioned along a top, outer edge of the container 20, such that it can be positioned to face substantially skyward and receive sunlight.”, Para. [0024]);
the one or more light-emitting elements are electrically connected to the solar device (As shown in Figs. 1-3 and described: “The PV panel 44 may be connected to a battery 46 which can store the electrical energy produced by the PV panel 44 during the sunlight hours, whereby the electrical energy is discharged at night or when the lighting is desired. The solar unit may include control circuity with a light sensor or photo eye 48 which can detect sunlight, thereby controlling the operation of the lighting unit 30 without requiring the user to manually turn the lighting unit 30 on or off.”, Para. [0024]).
Suarez does not expressly disclose wherein, the pot body is semitransparent.
However, in an analogous planter art, McRae discloses wherein, the pot body is semitransparent (“In various embodiments, the urn 125 may be substantially translucent to the light emitted by the light source 135.”, Para. [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez wherein, the pot body is semitransparent as taught by McRae, with a reasonable expectation for success, to allow the lights to decoratively illuminate the planter to improve visual appeal or provide more lighting to a greater area, as discussed by McRae, Para. [0003].
Suarez does not expressly disclose wherein, the pot body is made of an herb-plastic composite environmental-friendly material.
However, in an analogous planting art, O’Neal discloses wherein, the pot body is made of an herb-plastic composite environmental-friendly material (“The delivery system of claim 1 wherein the carrier comprises a material selected from the group consisting of paper, cardboard, biodegradable plastic, peat, mulch, straw, and burlap.”, Claim 28; carrier shown being used as a flowerpot or planter in Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez wherein, the pot body is made of an herb-plastic composite environmental-friendly material, as taught by O’Neal, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that the majority of the body is recyclable or safe for being placed on or in the ground. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as a planter or flowerpot, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 2, Suarez as modified by McRae and O’Neal is silent on the process of manufacturing the flowerpot body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot wherein the pot body is manufactured by following steps: the herb-plastic composite environmental-friendly material is melted at a high temperature and then pressed or injected or rolled by an apparatus to form the pot body with an expected shape and texture; plant particles having different colors are added in the herb-plastic composite environmental-friendly material during melting so as to produce the multi-colored semitransparent pot body, since even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, as disclosed by the combination of Suarez, McRae, and O’Neal, see claim 1 rejection above, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Regarding claim 9, Suarez teaches wherein the one or more light-emitting elements are a plurality of LED lamps, which are distributed annularly at regular intervals on an annular inner wall of the pot body (“The lighting device 30 may include a light bulb or diode, such as a light-emitting diode (LED), which is positioned within a housing, or on a chip in the case of an LED, and which receives electrical power from a power supply 40 to generate a quantity of light 32 which can be directed to the plant 12 within the container 20.”, Para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 10, Suarez teaches wherein the solar device comprises a solar photovoltaic panel and an energy storage battery, a solar module is connected between the solar photovoltaic panel and the energy storage battery, and a light control device is disposed on the solar module (“The solar power unit may include a photovoltaic cell or cells positioned at an exterior surface of the container 20, such that they can receive sunlight 14 to generate an electrical current which can be provided to the lighting device 30 simultaneously, or at a later point in time.”, Para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 11, Suarez teaches wherein the pot body has a wire outlet hole at the bottom of the pot body, a waterproof wire passes through the wire outlet hole to electrically connect the one or more light-emitting elements with the solar device (Fig. 3 shows wire outlet hole at the bottom of the flowerpot to attach the lights to the solar panel mounted elsewhere; note, implicitly disclosed as waterproof as it is shown outside and is intended for outdoor use).
Regarding claim 12, O’Neal discloses wherein the herb-plastic composite environmental-friendly material is a reinforced composite material prepared by mixing natural plant fibers with polypropylene or polyethylene and by means of a mixing technique; the natural plant fibers being one of or a mixture of several of coir fibers, pulp fibers, rice husk, rice bran, rice straw, wheat straw, corn straw, bamboo fibers, bagasse, reed canes, coconut fibers, pine wood, and arbor (“wherein the carrier comprises a material selected from the group consisting of paper, cardboard, biodegradable plastic, peat, mulch, straw, and burlap.”, Claim 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez wherein the herb-plastic composite environmental-friendly material is a reinforced composite material prepared by mixing natural plant fibers with polypropylene or polyethylene and by means of a mixing technique; the natural plant fibers being one of or a mixture of several of coir fibers, pulp fibers, rice husk, rice bran, rice straw, wheat straw, corn straw, bamboo fibers, bagasse, reed canes, coconut fibers, pine wood, and arbor, as further taught by O’Neal, with a reasonable expectation for success, such that the majority of the body is recyclable or safe for being placed on or in the ground. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, such as a planter or flowerpot, as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Suarez as modified by O’Neal is silent on the plant fiber content in the herb-plastic composite environmental-friendly material is 30%-70% (wt).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez as modified by O’Neal to further include the plant fiber content in the herb-plastic composite environmental-friendly material is 30%-70% (wt), with a reasonable expectation for success, because the contents of the plastic and plant composite are not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the plant fiber content could provide benefits to the biodegradability or durability, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. 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. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 2022/0232779 A1) in view of McRae (US 2018/0275330 A1) and O’Neal (US 6,286,252) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shieh (US 2013/0340335 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Suarez does not expressly disclose wherein a tray is disposed inside the pot body, a supporting rod is connected to the tray and a bottom of the pot body to support the tray; and the tray divides an inner space of the pot body into an upper layer for cultivating plants and a lower layer for mounting the one or more light-emitting elements which are resisted against an inner wall of the pot body.
However, in an analogous flowerpot art, Shieh discloses wherein a tray is disposed inside the pot body (Figs. 1 & 6, “tray” 11), a supporting rod is connected to the tray and a bottom of the pot body to support the tray (Figs. 1 and 6, rod below center of “tray” 11 and “drain” 12); and the tray divides an inner space of the pot body into an upper layer for cultivating plants (Figs. 3 and 5-6, inner space above “tray” 11 inside “body” 1 of flowerpot) and a lower layer for mounting the one or more light-emitting elements which are resisted against an inner wall of the pot body (Figs. 1 & 6, “power supply” 3 space with “LED luminous component mounting grooves” 13 against the inner wall of “tray” 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez wherein a tray is disposed inside the pot body, a supporting rod is connected to the tray and a bottom of the pot body to support the tray; and the tray divides an inner space of the pot body into an upper layer for cultivating plants and a lower layer for mounting the one or more light-emitting elements which are resisted against an inner wall of the pot body, as taught by Shieh, with a reasonable expectation for success, to ensure the soil and water for the plant are separated from the electrical components for the lights.
Regarding claim 4, Shieh further discloses wherein the supporting rod is a hollow tube with a top opening and a bottom opening which vertically stands between the tray and the bottom of the pot body; the tray has a first central hole and the bottom of the pot body has a second central hole, both central holes allowing water to pass through, the supporting rod has a top opening which communicates with the first central hole, and a bottom opening which communicates with the second central hole centered on the bottom of the pot body (Figs. 1-3 and 5-6 show “drainage” 12 at the center of the rod and “tray” 11, also shown at the bottom of Figs. 5-6; “wherein the base body is a hollow round-table-type structure, the center part of the upper surface of the base body is recessed downwardly to form a flower pot tray 11, a hole for water drainage 12 is arranged in the center of the flower pot tray 11”, Para. [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez wherein the supporting rod is a hollow tube with a top opening and a bottom opening which vertically stands between the tray and the bottom of the pot body; the tray has a first central hole and the bottom of the pot body has a second central hole, both central holes allowing water to pass through, the supporting rod has a top opening which communicates with the first central hole, and a bottom opening which communicates with the second central hole centered on the bottom of the pot body, as further taught by Shieh, with a reasonable expectation for success, to ensure the soil and plant is able to drain water, preventing over watering.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 2022/0232779 A1) in view of McRae (US 2018/0275330 A1) and O’Neal (US 6,286,252), further in view of Shieh (US 2013/0340335 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Conrad, JR (US 2012/0083929 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Suarez is silent on wherein a filtering element is disposed in the top opening of the supporting rod for allowing the water to pass through and prevent mud from escaping.
However, in an analogous flowerpot art, Conrad discloses wherein a filtering element is disposed in the top opening of the supporting rod for allowing the water to pass through and prevent mud from escaping (“The distributed fluid then filters downwardly through the growth/support medium, with any excess fluid moving through perforations in the tray”, Para. [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez wherein a filtering element is disposed in the top opening of the supporting rod for allowing the water to pass through and prevent mud from escaping, as taught by Conrad, with a reasonable expectation for success, to prevent the drain of the flowerpot from getting clogged, preventing over watering.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 2022/0232779 A1) in view of McRae (US 2018/0275330 A1) and O’Neal (US 6,286,252), as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shieh (US 2013/0340335 A1) and Sanford, Jr. (US 5,879,071).
Regarding claim 6, Suarez does not expressly disclose wherein the pot body comprises an outer pot body with an outer top opening and an inner pot with an inner top opening disposed inside the outer pot body, and a space is defined between the outer pot body and the inner pot body for mounting the one or more light-emitting elements; the inner pot body has an annular flange extending outward at the inner top opening to join with an edge of the outer top opening of the outer pot body, the inner pot body and the outer pot body are mounted together to form a complete outer pot body, the inner pot body is used for cultivating plants.
However, in an analogous flowerpot art, Shieh discloses wherein the pot body comprises an outer pot body with an outer top opening and an inner pot with an inner top opening disposed inside the outer pot body, and a space is defined between the outer pot body and the inner pot body for mounting the one or more light-emitting elements; the inner pot body and the outer pot body are mounted together to form a complete outer pot body, the inner pot body is used for cultivating plants (Best seen in Fig. 6, with “tray” 11 being the inner pot and “body” of flowerpot 1 being the outer pot, with “LED”s 13 disposed between 11 and 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez wherein the pot body comprises an outer pot body with an outer top opening and an inner pot with an inner top opening disposed inside the outer pot body, and a space is defined between the outer pot body and the inner pot body for mounting the one or more light-emitting elements; the inner pot body and the outer pot body are mounted together to form a complete outer pot body, the inner pot body is used for cultivating plants, as further taught by Shieh, with a reasonable expectation for success, to prevent the soil from covering the lights.
Suarez does not expressly disclose the inner pot body has an annular flange extending outward at the inner top opening to join with an edge of the outer top opening of the outer pot body.
However, in an analogous flowerpot accessory art, Sanford discloses the inner pot body has an annular flange extending outward at the inner top opening to join with an edge of the outer top opening of the outer pot body (Fig. 4, “light accessory” 10 shown nested inside “planter” 24 at top openings 20 and 28; “Once the edge portion 20 is seated against an upper edge 28 of the existing planter 24, the light accessory 10 stops sliding and the ribs 28 pop out, securing the light accessory 10 in the planter 24.”, Col. 2, Lines 28-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez to further include the inner pot body has an annular flange extending outward at the inner top opening to join with an edge of the outer top opening of the outer pot body, as taught by Sanford, with a reasonable expectation for success, to better secure the inner pot to the outer pot and allow for the pot with lights to be added to different flowerpots of different diameters.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suarez (US 2022/0232779 A1) in view of McRae (US 2018/0275330 A1) and O’Neal (US 6,286,252), further in view of Shieh (US 2013/0340335 A1) and Sanford, Jr. (US 5,879,071), as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Xiong (US 2023/0111009 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Shieh further discloses wherein the pot body comprises an outer pot body with an outer top opening and an inner pot with an inner top opening disposed inside the outer pot body, and a space is defined between the outer pot body and the inner pot body for mounting the one or more light-emitting elements (best seen in Fig. 6 with LEDs between the “tray” 11 and pot 1, similar arrangements of lights shown in Figs. 1 and 5); the outer pot body has a plurality of steps each protruding from an annular inner wall of the outer pot body at the outer top opening, and an annular mounting groove is formed at the annular inner wall of the outer pot body over the plurality of steps for receiving a top edge of the inner pot body at the inner top opening; and the top edge of the inner pot body inside the mounting groove (Best seen in an alternative embodiment Fig. 7 with “tray” 15 inside groove of pot 1 step).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez wherein the pot body comprises an outer pot body with an outer top opening and an inner pot with an inner top opening disposed inside the outer pot body, and a space is defined between the outer pot body and the inner pot body for mounting the one or more light-emitting elements; the outer pot body has a plurality of steps each protruding from an annular inner wall of the outer pot body at the outer top opening, and an annular mounting groove is formed at the annular inner wall of the outer pot body over the plurality of steps for receiving a top edge of the inner pot body at the inner top opening; and the top edge of the inner pot body inside the mounting groove, as further taught by Shieh, with a reasonable expectation for success, for “adapting to internal flower pots with different diameters of the pot mouth”, as discussed by Shieh, Para. [0032].
Suarez does not expressly disclose the inner pot body is a hard pot body, however, discloses a hard material: “A portable container is formed from a cast concrete material, the portable container having an interior space capable of holding a plant within a quantity of potting medium.”, Para. [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez to further include the inner pot body is a hard pot body, with a reasonable expectation for success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material, such as hard concrete, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Suarez does not expressly disclose the top edge of the inner pot body inside the mounting groove is sealed to the annular inner wall of the outer pot body by waterproof glue.
However, in an analogous planter art, Xiong discloses the use of glue: “In another embodiment, the light connector 806 attaches the solar light 800 to the wall panel via fasteners e.g., screw, bolt, tape, or glue. In one embodiment, the solar light 800 is detachable from the garden bed 100 without using of any tools.”, Para. [0126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez to further include glue, as taught by Xiong with a reasonable expectation for success, since this was an art-recognized equivalent for connecting components to one another in flowerpots and planters.
Regarding claim 8, Shieh further discloses wherein the pot body comprises an outer pot body with an outer top opening and an inner pot with an inner top opening disposed inside the outer pot body, and a space is defined between the outer pot body and the inner pot body for mounting the one or more light-emitting elements (best seen in Fig. 6 with LEDs between the “tray” 11 and pot 1, similar arrangements of lights shown in Figs. 1 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez wherein the pot body comprises an outer pot body with an outer top opening and an inner pot with an inner top opening disposed inside the outer pot body, and a space is defined between the outer pot body and the inner pot body for mounting the one or more light-emitting elements, as further taught by Shieh, with a reasonable expectation for success, to prevent the soil from covering the lights.
Further, Sanford further discloses the inner pot body is a soft pot body (“the planter light accessory 10 is molded out of plastic”, Col. 2, Lines 18-19; note, plastic is soft relative to the concrete or metal) and has a mounting ring extending outward at the inner top opening, the mounting ring has a plurality of mounting holes distributed at intervals (Fig. 6, “fasteners” 46, shown in holes); the inner pot body has a plurality of protrusions protruding from an annular inner wall of the outer top opening of the outer pot body (Fig. 1, “ribs” 26 shown for retaining and mounting against annular inner wall of the outer pot 1; “The light accessory 10 is secured to the existing planter 24 by a plurality of resilient retaining ribs 26. Said ribs 26 are mounted on the exterior of the side wall 14 and spaced circumferentially around the side wall 14.”, Col. 2, Lines 19-23); a plurality of supporting arc bars distributed annually for supporting the inner pot body is connected to the plurality of protrusions (As described: “In use, the light accessory 10 slides into the existing planter 24 as shown in FIG. 4. When the light accessory 10 is sliding into the planter 24, the ribs 26 are pushed into the side wall 14. Once the edge portion 20 is seated against an upper edge 28 of the existing planter 24, the light accessory 10 stops sliding and the ribs 28 pop out, securing the light accessory 10 in the planter 24.”, Col. 2, Lines 24-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez to further include the inner pot body is a soft pot body and has a mounting ring extending outward at the inner top opening, the mounting ring has a plurality of mounting holes distributed at intervals; a plurality of supporting arc bars distributed annually for supporting the inner pot body is connected to the plurality of protrusions, as further disclosed by Sanford, with a reasonable expectation for success, to better secure the inner pot to the outer pot and allow for the pot with lights to be added to different flowerpots of different diameters. Further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material, such as plastic, on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Suarez as modified by Sanford does not expressly disclose the outer pot body has a plurality of protrusions protruding from an annular inner wall of the outer top opening of the outer pot body, instead the protrusions are on the outer wall of the inner pot.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez as modified by Sanford to further include disclose the outer pot body has a plurality of protrusions protruding from an annular inner wall of the outer top opening of the outer pot body, instead the protrusions are on the outer wall of the inner pot, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device, such as putting the protrusions onto the inner wall of the outer pot as instead of the reverse of the protrusions on the outer wall of the inner pot, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Suarez does not expressly disclose each supporting arc bar has one or more screw holes, the inner pot body is connected to the outer pot body by a plurality of screws, each screw passing through the corresponding mounting hole of the inner pot body and the corresponding screw hole to be screwed into.
However, in an analogous planter art, Xiong discloses the use of screws for mounting: “Each trellis connector 603 has a pair of connector brackets 6031 extending from a side base 6032. The side base has a side base hole 6033 receiving a fastener, e.g., a screw, blot, and cork, which connects the trellis connector 603 to the wall panel of the garden bed 100.”, Para. [0114]; “In another embodiment, the light connector 806 attaches the solar light 800 to the wall panel via fasteners e.g., screw, bolt, tape, or glue.”, Para. [0126].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the flowerpot of Suarez to use mounting screws, as taught by Xiong, with a reasonable expectation for success, since this was an art-recognized equivalent for connecting components to one another in flowerpots and planters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN J SHUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 am - 4:00 pm EDT.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571)272-6909. 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.
/S.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647