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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “Disclosed in the present disclosure”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Fig. 1 has a reference callout with no reference character in the top right corner of the drawing.
PNG
media_image1.png
160
96
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 has a reference character that is hard to discern.
PNG
media_image2.png
70
102
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following non-limiting informalities:
In claim 4 lines 9-11 describe that M3 represents a moment generated due to friction between the weather strip and the vehicle door body. It appears to the examiner that there is no relative movement between those components and that it should be between the weatherstrip and the vehicle door glass.
Claim 11 line 9 recites “a vehicle door body”, but should recite “the vehicle door body”
Claim 11 line 10 recites “a lifting mechanism”, but should recite “the lifting mechanism”
Claim 12 line 7 recites “a vehicle door body”, but should recite “the vehicle door body”
Claim 12 line 8 recites “a lifting mechanism”, but should recite “the lifting mechanism”
In claim 15 lines 9-11 describe that M3 represents a moment generated due to friction between the weather strip and the vehicle door body. It appears to the examiner that there is no relative movement between those components and that it should be between the weatherstrip and the vehicle door glass.
In claim 19 lines 9-11 describe that M3 represents a moment generated due to friction between the weather strip and the vehicle door body. It appears to the examiner that there is no relative movement between those components and that it should be between the weatherstrip and the vehicle door glass.
Appropriate correction is required. It is up to the applicant to find and correct all issues similar to those described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 is a copy of claim 13 from which it depends. Claim 18 is a copy of claim 14 from which it depends. Claim 19 is a copy of claim 15 from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 9, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patrick (FR2732274, translation provided by examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Patrick teaches a vehicle door glass assembly (fig. 1), comprising:
a vehicle door glass (2) with a first end (right end) and a second end (left end), which are opposite to each other along a length direction of the vehicle door glass (left to right in fig. 2),
the first end and the second end of the vehicle door glass being configured for sealed sliding fit with a vehicle door body (as car windows do) along a lifting direction (up down direction in fig. 2),
the vehicle door glass being driven by a lifting mechanism (3) to move along the lifting direction, and a force-bearing point (01) between the lifting mechanism and the vehicle door glass being a main support point (this is where the lifting mechanism attaches to the glass); and
a counterweight structure (9, fig. 5) mounted on the vehicle door glass (2);
wherein in a state where the vehicle door glass moves along the lifting direction, the center of gravity of the vehicle door glass is adjusted by the counterweight structure (the counterweight itself by existing adjusts the center of gravity), and moments of force generated by forces acting on the vehicle door glass relative to the main support point are balanced with each other (as is described on page 2 lines 9-16 of the examiner provided translation).
Regarding claim 2, Patrick teaches that a length of the first end (right end) of the vehicle door glass extending along the lifting direction is less than a length of the second end (left end) of the vehicle door glass extending along the lifting direction (fig. 2 shows how the right end is slightly shorter than the left end), and the center of gravity of the counterweight structure is located between the main support point and the first end of the vehicle door glass (fig. 2 shows that the counter weight is on the right between the main support point and the first end of the vehicle glass door).
Regarding claim 9, Patrick teaches that the counterweight structure (9) comprises at least one counterweight block (shown in fig. 5), the vehicle door glass (2) comprises an inner surface facing the interior of a vehicle and an outer surface facing the exterior of the vehicle (can be seen in fig. 5), and the counterweight block is mounted on the inner surface, the outer surface and/or an edge of the vehicle door glass (as is shown in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 11, Patrick teaches a vehicle door assembly, comprising a vehicle door glass assembly (fig. 1), a vehicle door main body (fig. 1); and
a lifting mechanism (3) mounted on the vehicle door body;
wherein the vehicle door glass assembly comprises:
a vehicle door glass (2) with a first end (right end) and a second end (left end), which are opposite to each other along a length direction of the vehicle door glass (left to right in fig. 2),
the first end and the second end of the vehicle door glass being configured for sealed sliding fit with a vehicle door body (as car windows do) along a lifting direction (vertical direction in fig. 2),
the vehicle door glass being driven by a lifting mechanism (3) to move along the lifting direction,
and a force-bearing point (01) between the lifting mechanism and the vehicle door glass being a main support point (this is where the lifting mechanism attaches to the glass); and
a counterweight structure (9, fig. 5) mounted on the vehicle door glass (2); and
wherein in a state where the vehicle door glass moves along the lifting direction, the center of gravity of the vehicle door glass is adjusted by the counterweight structure (the counterweight itself by existing adjusts the center of gravity), and moments of force generated by forces acting on the vehicle door glass relative to the main support point are balanced with each other (as is described on page 2 lines 9-16 of the examiner provided translation).
Regarding claim 12, Patrick teaches a vehicle (fig. 1), comprising a vehicle door assembly (fig. 1), wherein the vehicle door assembly comprises a vehicle door glass assembly (shown in fig. 1), a vehicle door main body; and a lifting mechanism (3) mounted on the vehicle door body; and
wherein the vehicle door glass assembly comprises:
a vehicle door glass (2) with
a first end (right end) and a second end (left end), which are opposite to each other along a length direction of the vehicle door glass (left to right in fig. 2),
the first end and the second end of the vehicle door glass being configured for sealed sliding fit with a vehicle door body (as car windows do) along a lifting direction (up down direction in fig. 2),
the vehicle door glass being driven by a lifting mechanism (3) to move along the lifting direction, and a force-bearing point (01) between the lifting mechanism and the vehicle door glass being a main support point (this is where the lifting mechanism attaches to the glass); and
a counterweight structure (9, fig. 5) mounted on the vehicle door glass (2);
wherein in a state where the vehicle door glass moves along the lifting direction, the center of gravity of the vehicle door glass is adjusted by the counterweight structure (the counterweight itself by existing adjusts the center of gravity), and moments of force generated by forces acting on the vehicle door glass relative to the main support point are balanced with each other (as is described on page 2 lines 9-16 of the examiner provided translation).
Regarding claim 13, Patrick teaches that a length of the first end (right end) of the vehicle door glass extending along the lifting direction is less than a length of the second end (left end) of the vehicle door glass extending along the lifting direction (fig. 2 shows how the right end is slightly shorter than the left end), and the center of gravity of the counterweight structure is located between the main support point and the first end of the vehicle door glass (fig. 2 shows that the counter weight is on the right between the main support point and the first end of the vehicle glass door).
Regarding claim 17, Patrick teaches that a length of the first end (right end) of the vehicle door glass extending along the lifting direction is less than a length of the second end (left end) of the vehicle door glass extending along the lifting direction (fig. 2 shows how the right end is slightly shorter than the left end), and the center of gravity of the counterweight structure is located between the main support point and the first end of the vehicle door glass (fig. 2 shows that the counter weight is on the right between the main support point and the first end of the vehicle glass door).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick (FR2732274, translation provided by examiner) in view of Gopalan (US 10040888).
Regarding claim 3, Patrick does not explicitly teach that a weatherstrip is mounted on the vehicle door body, the vehicle door glass passes through the weatherstrip along the lifting direction to be in sealed sliding fit with the weatherstrip, and the counterweight structure is located below the weatherstrip.
Gopalan teaches a vehicle door glass assembly with a weatherstrip (122) is mounted on a vehicle door body (shown in figs. 1 and 2), the vehicle door glass (106) passes through the weatherstrip along the lifting direction to be in sealed sliding fit with the weatherstrip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patrick with teachings of Gopalan so that there is a weatherstrip is mounted on the vehicle door body, the vehicle door glass passes through the weatherstrip along the lifting direction to be in sealed sliding fit with the weatherstrip. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the internals of the door from moisture. It is noted that after this modification, the counterweight structure is located below the weatherstrip, as the counterweight structure is on the bottom of the window.
Regarding claim 4, modified Patrick teaches that the moments of force generated by the forces acting on the vehicle door glass relative to the main support point have a relationship: M1+M3+Mvehicle door glass+Mcounterweight +M2=0 (again the examiner directs attention to page 2 lines 9-16 of the examiner provided translation, where it is explained how the forces, and in turn the moments are balanced), where Mi represents a moment of force generated by a sliding friction force between the first end of the vehicle door glass and the vehicle door body relative to the main support point, M2 represents a moment of force generated by a sliding friction force between the second end of the vehicle door glass and the vehicle door body relative to the main support point, M3 represents a moment of force generated by a sliding friction force between the weatherstrip and the vehicle door glass (see claim objection above) relative to the main support point, Mvehicle door glass represents a moment of force generated by the gravity of the vehicle door glass relative to the main support point, and Mcounterweight represents a moment of force generated by the gravity of the counterweight structure relative to the main support point.
Regarding claim 14, Patrick does not explicitly teach that a weatherstrip is mounted on the vehicle door body, the vehicle door glass passes through the weatherstrip along the lifting direction to be in sealed sliding fit with the weatherstrip, and the counterweight structure is located below the weatherstrip.
Gopalan teaches a vehicle door glass assembly with a weatherstrip (122) is mounted on a vehicle door body (shown in figs. 1 and 2), the vehicle door glass (106) passes through the weatherstrip along the lifting direction to be in sealed sliding fit with the weatherstrip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patrick with teachings of Gopalan so that there is a weatherstrip is mounted on the vehicle door body, the vehicle door glass passes through the weatherstrip along the lifting direction to be in sealed sliding fit with the weatherstrip. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the internals of the door from moisture. It is noted that after this modification, the counterweight structure is located below the weatherstrip, as the counterweight structure is on the bottom of the window.
Regarding claim 15, modified Patrick teaches that the moments of force generated by the forces acting on the vehicle door glass relative to the main support point have a relationship: M1+M3+Mvehicle door glass+Mcounterweight +M2=0 (again the examiner directs attention to page 2 lines 9-16 of the examiner provided translation, where it is explained how the forces, and in turn the moments are balanced), where Mi represents a moment of force generated by a sliding friction force between the first end of the vehicle door glass and the vehicle door body relative to the main support point, M2 represents a moment of force generated by a sliding friction force between the second end of the vehicle door glass and the vehicle door body relative to the main support point, M3 represents a moment of force generated by a sliding friction force between the weatherstrip and the vehicle door glass (see claim objection above) relative to the main support point, Mvehicle door glass represents a moment of force generated by the gravity of the vehicle door glass relative to the main support point, and Mcounterweight represents a moment of force generated by the gravity of the counterweight structure relative to the main support point.
Regarding claim 18, Patrick does not explicitly teach that a weatherstrip is mounted on the vehicle door body, the vehicle door glass passes through the weatherstrip along the lifting direction to be in sealed sliding fit with the weatherstrip, and the counterweight structure is located below the weatherstrip.
Gopalan teaches a vehicle door glass assembly with a weatherstrip (122) is mounted on a vehicle door body (shown in figs. 1 and 2), the vehicle door glass (106) passes through the weatherstrip along the lifting direction to be in sealed sliding fit with the weatherstrip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patrick with teachings of Gopalan so that there is a weatherstrip is mounted on the vehicle door body, the vehicle door glass passes through the weatherstrip along the lifting direction to be in sealed sliding fit with the weatherstrip. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the internals of the door from moisture. It is noted that after this modification, the counterweight structure is located below the weatherstrip, as the counterweight structure is on the bottom of the window.
Regarding claim 19, modified Patrick teaches that the moments of force generated by the forces acting on the vehicle door glass relative to the main support point have a relationship: M1+M3+Mvehicle door glass+Mcounterweight +M2=0 (again the examiner directs attention to page 2 lines 9-16 of the examiner provided translation, where it is explained how the forces, and in turn the moments are balanced), where Mi represents a moment of force generated by a sliding friction force between the first end of the vehicle door glass and the vehicle door body relative to the main support point, M2 represents a moment of force generated by a sliding friction force between the second end of the vehicle door glass and the vehicle door body relative to the main support point, M3 represents a moment of force generated by a sliding friction force between the weatherstrip and the vehicle door glass (see claim objection above) relative to the main support point, Mvehicle door glass represents a moment of force generated by the gravity of the vehicle door glass relative to the main support point, and Mcounterweight represents a moment of force generated by the gravity of the counterweight structure relative to the main support point.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick (FR2732274, translation provided by examiner) in view of Kent (US 3759004).
Regarding claim 10, Patrick teaches that the counterweight block (9) is mounted on the vehicle door glass, but does not teach that it is mounted through a mounting fixture, which is adhesively fixed on the inner surface, the outer surface and/or the edge of the vehicle door glass, and the counterweight block is clamped on the mounting fixture and adhesively fixed.
Kent teaches a glass assembly with a mounting fixture (6) which is adhesively (column 1 line 66 through column 2 line 4) fixed on a surface of glass (4). It also teaches components clamped together (column 1 line 66-collumn 2 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Patrick so that the counterweight block is mounted on the vehicle door glass through a mounting fixture, which is adhesively fixed on the inner surface, the outer surface and/or the edge of the vehicle door glass, and so the counterweight block is clamped on the mounting fixture and adhesively fixed. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of a secure connection between the counterweight block and the glass.
Claim(s) 5-7, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patrick (FR2732274, translation provided by examiner) in view of Watanabe (US 732618).
Regarding claim 5, Patrick does not explicitly teach a first sealing strip and a second sealing strip are mounted on the vehicle door body along the lifting direction, the first end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the first sealing strip, and the second end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the second sealing strip.
Watanabe teaches a vehicle door glass assembly (fig. 3) with a first sealing strip (44 from fig. 6) and a second sealing strip (44 from fig. 5) are mounted on the vehicle door body along the lifting direction (see fig. 6), the first end (right end) of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the first sealing strip (see fig. 6), and the second end (left end) of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the second sealing strip (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patrick with the teachings of Watanabe so that there is a first sealing strip and a second sealing strip are mounted on the vehicle door body along the lifting direction, the first end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the first sealing strip, and the second end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the second sealing strip. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the interior of the car from moisture.
Regarding claim 6, modified Patrick includes teachings from Watanabe and teaches at least one first limiting structure (32 in fig. 6) is disposed between (fig. 6 shows that there is a portion of 44 that extends above the limiting structure) the first end of the vehicle door glass (as shown in fig. 6) and the first sealing strip (44),
at least one second limiting structure (32 in fig. 4) and at least one third limiting structure (32 in fig. 5) are disposed between the second end of the vehicle door glass and the second sealing strip (fig. 5 shows at least a portion of the sealing strip extending above and below the limiting structures, and fig. 3), the first limiting structure and the second limiting structure are cooperated to limit the movement of the vehicle door glass along a thickness direction of the vehicle door glass, and the third limiting structure limits the movement of the vehicle door glass along the length direction of the vehicle door glass.
Regarding claim 7, modified Patrick includes teachings from Watanabe and teaches that the first limiting structure (32 in fig. 6) comprises a first guide bracket (element 32 itself is a guide bracket), which is mounted on the first end of the vehicle door glass along the lifting direction (see fig. 3);
a first guide groove is formed in the first sealing strip along the lifting direction (as is shown in fig. 6), and two first limiting surfaces (93 and 94) opposite to each other along the thickness direction of the vehicle door glass are provided in the first guide groove; and
the first guide bracket abuts against the two first limiting surfaces (fig. 6 shows the elements abutting) and is slidable in the first guide groove (capable of).
Regarding claim 16, Patrick does not explicitly teach a first sealing strip and a second sealing strip are mounted on the vehicle door body along the lifting direction, the first end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the first sealing strip, and the second end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the second sealing strip.
Watanabe teaches a vehicle door glass assembly (fig. 3) with a first sealing strip (44 from fig. 6) and a second sealing strip (44 from fig. 5) are mounted on the vehicle door body along the lifting direction (see fig. 6), the first end (right end) of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the first sealing strip (see fig. 6), and the second end (left end) of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the second sealing strip (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patrick with the teachings of Watanabe so that there is a first sealing strip and a second sealing strip are mounted on the vehicle door body along the lifting direction, the first end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the first sealing strip, and the second end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the second sealing strip. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the interior of the car from moisture.
Regarding claim 20, Patrick does not explicitly teach a first sealing strip and a second sealing strip are mounted on the vehicle door body along the lifting direction, the first end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the first sealing strip, and the second end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the second sealing strip.
Watanabe teaches a vehicle door glass assembly (fig. 3) with a first sealing strip (44 from fig. 6) and a second sealing strip (44 from fig. 5) are mounted on the vehicle door body along the lifting direction (see fig. 6), the first end (right end) of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the first sealing strip (see fig. 6), and the second end (left end) of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the second sealing strip (fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patrick with the teachings of Watanabe so that there is a first sealing strip and a second sealing strip are mounted on the vehicle door body along the lifting direction, the first end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the first sealing strip, and the second end of the vehicle door glass is in sealed sliding fit with the vehicle door body through the second sealing strip. This alteration provides the predictable and expected results of protecting the interior of the car from moisture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R SHEPHERD whose telephone number is (571)272-5657. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 Cahn can be reached at (571) 270-5616. 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.
/M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights