DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 03/19/2026, the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1-3, 5-21 and 26 were amended, Claims 4, 22-25 were canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-21 and 26 are presented for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 100’ and 314’ in fig. 6.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 10, “and/or” in line 4 should be amended to –or— for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 5-9, 11-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenhardt (US 4027733 A as cited in IDS) in view of Xiang (MDPI: An Investigation into the Effect of Rolling Reduction on 3D Curved Parts Rolling Process).
Regarding claim 1, Eisenhardt teaches a weed control module including: a first roller (64); and a second roller (66) for locating adjacent the first roller to cause damage to weeds (97) passing between the rollers or under the rollers (fig. 9, abstract and Col. 4, lines 12-37), wherein the first roller includes a convex surface (fig. 9), the first and second rollers oriented upright (fig. 9 depicts the first and second rollers to be oriented upright).
However, Eisenhardt is silent about wherein the second roller includes a concave surface, the first and second rollers forming a complementary fit.
Xiang teaches wherein the second roller (concave roller of fig. 1) includes a concave surface (fig. 1), the first (convex roller of fig. 1) and second rollers forming a complementary fit (the concave surface of the second roller forms a complementary fit with the convex surface of the first roller).
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 second roller of Eisenhardt to be a concave surface, and the first and second rollers forming a complementary fit as taught by Xiang in order to have a simpler structure, improve rigidity and provide a lower cost (see “RTRAR’s equipment has a simpler structure, better rigidity, and lower cost” on page 2 of Xiang), and to further deform the object (see “produce bending deformation perpendicular to the rolling direction” on page 2 of Xiang).
Regarding claim 2, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the weed control module is used to achieve weed control by stressing and maiming the weeds (fig. 9 and Col. 4, lines 12-37 as the weeds between the rollers will become stressed and maimed) and in doing so, using the weeds as sacrificial vegetation that, secondary to their control through death or resulting from the stressing and maiming, sacrificially assist growth of planted crops (12; fig. 9, and Col. 2, lines 59-64).
Regarding claim 3, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the rollers have a curved interface (fig. 9), configured to apply a vertical or pulling force to the weeds (Col. 5, lines 57-60).
Regarding claim 5, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the weed control module includes motor (78, 78A, 78B and 78C) means for driving the rollers in opposite directions to draw the weeds between them (Col. 5, lines 50-66), the motor means including belts (88 in fig. 8 as the chain has an upper and lower continuous surface, and so is a belt) for driving other rollers (figs. 1 and 8).
Regarding claim 6, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the weed control module as claimed in claim 5, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the rollers are driven at different speeds (Col. 4, lines 53-56 as the rollers can rotate based on a user’s desired speed, and so will have different speeds).
Regarding claim 7, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the rollers compress the weeds and are adjustable to adjustably control the degree of compression (Col. 4, lines 12-37 as adjusting the air pressure in the tires would control the degree of compression).
Regarding claim 8, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein each roller rotates about a roller axis extending at an acute angle from vertical (fig. 2 depicts the roller axis extending at an acute angle from vertical).
Regarding claim 9, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein at least one of the rollers include a gripping surface (figs. 2 and 6-7 and Col. 4, lines 34-37) for gripping the weeds (figs. 2 and 6-7 and Col. 4, lines 34-37), the gripping surface being a ribbed, grooved or corrugated surface (figs. 2 and 6-7 and Col. 4, lines 34-37).
Regarding claim 11, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the weed control module as claimed in claim 1, and Eisenhardt further teaches further including: guard means for guarding at least one of the rollers, the guard means including a sheath; one or more mounting brackets, and spindles extending from the rollers and through the mounting brackets; guides for guiding weeds between the rollers; a reflector for reflecting light; a horizontal ground support roller (19, 20); or mechanical or electrical sensors that detect a height between ground features and the weed control module.
Regarding claim 12, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches a modular weed control device and and Eisenhardt further teaches including one or more the weed control plurality of the modules (fig. 1) of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Eisenhardt as modified by the modular weed control device of claim 12, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein the weed control modules are arranged in sets (fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 57-63 as one set is 64, 66, 64a, 66a and the other set is 64b, 66b, 64c, 66c).
Regarding claim 14, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the modular weed control device of claim 13, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein each set is located in register with a respective furrow or between adjacent crop rows (fig. 1 and Col. 2, lines 57-63).
Regarding claim 15, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the modular weed control device of claim 13, and Eisenhardt further teaches wherein each set includes a quartet of weed control modules (fig. 1 as one set is 64, 66, 64a, 66a and the other set is 64b, 66b, 64c, 66c), the quartet being symmetrically arranged with a pair of distal forward weed control modules (64a, 66a, 64c, 66c) and a pair of proximal rearward weed control modules (64, 66, 64b, 66b).
Regarding claim 16, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the modular weed control device of claim 12, and Eisenhardt further teaches further including: one or more light mounting frames to which lights are mounted; a frame (17) to which the weed control modules are mounted (fig. 1); an electrical power source for powering the device (Col. 1, lines 51-65); or a terrain following mechanism which automatically adjusts a height of the rollers as the weed control device passes over uneven terrain so that a distance between the rollers and terrain remains constant.
Regarding claim 20, Eisenhardt teaches a weed control method including: passing weeds between a first roller (64) and a second roller (66) located adjacent to the first roller to cause damage to the weeds (fig. 9, abstract and Col. 4, lines 12-37); wherein the first roller includes a convex surface (fig. 9), the first and second rollers oriented upright (fig. 9).
However, Eisenhardt is silent about wherein the second roller includes a concave surface, the first and second rollers forming a complementary fit.
Xiang teaches wherein the second roller (concave roller of fig. 1) includes a concave surface (fig. 1), the first (convex roller of fig. 1) and second rollers forming a complementary fit (the concave surface of the second roller forms a complementary fit with the convex surface of the first roller).
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 second roller of Eisenhardt to be a concave surface, and the first and second rollers forming a complementary fit as taught by Xiang in order to have a simpler structure, improve rigidity and provide a lower cost (see “RTRAR’s equipment has a simpler structure, better rigidity, and lower cost” on page 2 of Xiang), and to further deform the object (see “produce bending deformation perpendicular to the rolling direction” on page 2 of Xiang).
Claim(s) 10 and 17-18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Bourquin (US 9756845 B1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 10, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the weed control module as claimed in claim 1, but is silent wherein at least one of the rollers includes: a heater for applying heat to the weeds; one or more fluid passages through which pneumatic air, gas and/or chemicals can be supplied to the weeds; slots in the form of deep slots and shallow slots; helical formations, whether depressed or protruding; weed contact picks on an underside face of the at least one of the rollers adjacent to a soil surface; or scalloped or uneven formations at its base.
Bourquin teaches at least one of the rollers includes: a heater for applying heat to the weeds (Col. 15, lines 37-45); one or more fluid passages through which pneumatic air, gas and/or chemicals can be supplied to the weeds; slots in the form of deep slots and shallow slots; helical formations, whether depressed or protruding; weed contact picks on an underside face of the at least one of the rollers adjacent to a soil surface; or scalloped or uneven formations at its base.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify at least one of the rollers of Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang to include a heater for applying heat to the weeds by Bourquin in order to reduce the use of chemicals and preserve the structure of the soil as it is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the modular weed control device of claim 12, but is silent about further including a stressor applicator for applying a stressor to the weeds.
Bourquin teaches a stressor applicator (Col. 15, lines 37-45) for applying a stressor to the weeds (Col. 15, lines 37-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a stressor applicator for applying a stressor to the weeds as taught by Bourquin into the modular weed control device of Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang in order to further reduce the spread of weeds and preserve the structure of the soil as it is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang and Bourquin teaches the modular weed control device of claim 17, and Bourquin further teaches wherein the stressor includes any one or more of a mechanical, light, thermal (Col. 15, lines 37-45) and pneumatic stressor.
Regarding claim 21, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang teaches the weed control method of claim 20, and Eisenhardt further teaches achieving weed control (abstract) without ploughing and without an application of herbicides (Eisenhardt does not teach the use of ploughing and herbicides).
However, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang is silent about the method further involving applying a stressor to the weed or leaving the damaged weed in ground to facilitate growth of a crop.
Bourquin teaches a stressor (Col. 15, lines 37-45) to the weed (Col. 15, lines 37-45) or leaving the damaged weed in ground to facilitate growth of a crop.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a stressor to the weed or leaving the damaged weed in ground to facilitate growth of a crop as taught by Bourquin into the modular weed control device of Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang in order to further reduce the spread of weeds and preserve the structure of the soil as it is well known in the art.
Claims 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang and Bourquin as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Jackson (US 20200120917 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang and Bourquin teaches the modular weed control device of claim 17, but is silent wherein the stressor applicator includes a light source for applying light, the light including ultra-violet (UV) light.
Jackson teaches wherein the stressor applicator (11) includes a light source for applying light, the light including ultra-violet (UV) light ([0143]).
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 stressor of Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang and Bourquin to include a light source for applying light, the light including ultra-violet (UV) light as taught by Jackson in order to burn the plant ([0143] of Jackson).
Regarding claim 26, Eisenhardt as modified by Xiang, Bourquin and Jackson teaches the modular weed control device of claim 19, and Jackson further teaches wherein the light source for applying light includes UV-C light ([0143]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant has amended the Specification to include language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section as follows: The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in shaded color and one drawing in photographic representation. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with these drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee”.
The examiner respectively disagrees. Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. While a petition has been filed, it has not yet been granted, therefore the drawing objection remains.
Applicant further argues “In contrast, the invention of Xiang lies in the unrelated art of manufacturing 3D parts from sheet metal (see first para. of Abstract). Accordingly, the Examiner has relied upon the art of Xiang which is in a non-analogous field to weed control devices, whereas it must be in an analogous art - which it is plainly not. Applicant therefore submits that the present invention is not obvious.”.
In response to applicant's argument that Xiang is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Xiang is analogous art as it teaches first and second rollers that can receive an object between the two rollers and deform the original form of an object (see “produce bending deformation perpendicular to the rolling direction” on page 2 of Xiang). Therefore, Xiang is capable of having a weed placed between the first and second rollers to deform and destroy the weed, and so Xiang is analogous art.
Applicant further argues “In the present case, the Examiner is seeking to modify the second roller 66 in Eisenhardt to have a concave roller as taught by Xiang. However, the second roller 66 of Eisenhardt must also have outer endless convex surface, because if the surface was concave to form a complementary fit, at least the second roller 66 would be unable to rotate making the rollers unsatisfactory for their intended purpose of weed control. Applicant therefore submits that the present invention is further not obvious.
If the concave engagement surface of Xiang abutted the flat engagement surface of Eisenhardt, then there would undesirably be a gap for weeds to pass through which once again provides an unsatisfactory result. Xiang's rollers in themselves cannot even be applied to the present invention because the differential non-uniform gap between Xiang's rollers, if applied to the present invention, would result in a significant portion of the weeds not being crushed (see second sentence in Abstract - "The method uses a pair of arc-shaped rollers (a convex roller and a concave roller) as forming tools, forming an unevenly distributed rolling gap.") The purpose of the present invention cannot be achieved by the application of Xiang rollers.” And
“Xiang's rollers are also not complementary. The principle of operation of Xiang's rollers in metal formation relies on a non-complimentary interface between the convex and concave rollers as shown in Figure 2 of Xiang's paper. At no point does Xiang refer to a "complementary fit" of the rollers - because a complementary fit of the rollers negates the very purpose of Xiang's paper, which is to quantify the forming effects on sheet steel of non- complementary rolling surfaces that are comprised of a variable rolling gap between them (see Xiang, Figure 2). Accordingly, claim 1 is further not obvious.”.
The examiner disagrees as the rollers of Eisenhardt would still be able to operate as Xiang teaches the rollers to rotate, and so the modification of the second roller of Eisenhardt will still be able to operate properly.
Also, the first roller of Eisenhardt does not have a flat engagement surface, as Fig. 9 depicts the first roller to have a convex surface (fig. 9). Applicant’s argument that the engagement surface is flat is unpersuasive as the figures and disclosure do not depict the rollers to have a flat engagement surface. Therefore, the modification to the second roller Eisenhardt to be concave as taught by Xiang will form a complementary fit.
Applicant further argues “In contrast, Xiang teaches horizontally oriented rollers for engaging with horizontally oriented sheet metal. Accordingly, the present invention is further not obvious.
Elaborating further, the prior art in Xiang and even Bourquin disclose rollers with their axis oriented horizontal to the ground, not upright or vertical to the ground as in the present invention. Xiang's rollers are a horizontal roller pair. Xiang and Bourquin disclose roller pairs oriented horizontally with respect to the ground, (compared to vertically orientated rollers in the present invention). Hence, in Bourquin (every figure) & Xiang (Figure 11 and Figure 1) weeds cannot pass between the rollers and remain in the ground. Instead, prior art such as Bourquin pulls the weeds from the ground by pulling them vertically upwards out of the ground.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see rejection above as fig. 9 of Eisenhardt depicts the first and second rollers to be oriented upright.
Applicant further argues “Even if Xiang's convex/concave roller pair were modified to be applied in a vertical orientation (shaft axis perpendicular to the ground), then Xiang's rollers could not provide a feasible solution because the shafts are "simply supported", i.e., there is a bearing at each end of the shaft (see Figure 11) and a worm gear mechanism is required to adjust the vertical movement of Xiang's rollers (Xiang p.9, paragraph 1). Xiang's rollers cannot be modified to arrive at the present invention.
In the present invention, the shafts are preferably cantilevered from above so that the bottom of the rollers can skim the surface of the ground. Xiang's rollers cannot skim the ground surface (if mounted vertically) because there would be a bearing and a worm gear device at the bottommost extent of the shaft (Xiang, Fig 11; p.9 paragraph 1). Therefore, the bearing and worm gear would plough through the ground in order to allow the roller to skim along the ground surface - this obviates one of the purposes of the present invention, which is not to plough the ground. In any event, Xiang's horizontal roller mechanism cannot be combined to arrive at the invention.
If Xiang's rollers were to be modified in the vertical orientation (shaft axis perpendicular to the ground) and further modified so that a cantilever shaft design is applied using the concept of a vertical convex/concave roller pair, then it is important not to overlook the additional detail that all of the prior art in Eisenhardt, Bourquin, and Xiang (Ref.: Fig 11, Fig 1, the mathematical description in Figure 3, and the FEM Model in Fig 4) disclose roller shafts that are parallel to each other.”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues “Considering the roller shafts in all prior art are parallel, none of the prior art can provide a feasible product to achieve the purpose of the preferred embodiment of the present invention and are each distinguished from the preferred rollers because:
1) the roller shafts and rollers in the preferred embodiment are skewed in the vertical axis (see, claim 8; Specification, 00037 & 00088) about 30 degrees to each other to apply force combinations that none of the prior art can apply individually or in combination. Xiang's rollers in conjunction with other prior art cannot form a feasible product compared to the preferred embodiment of the present invention because the rollers are not skew to each other and therefore cannot cause the necessary optimum damage/maiming to weeds that pass between them;
2) the rollers in the preferred embodiment of the invention apply stress and strain in all three dimensions/axes (Specification, 00039) whereas the prior art can impose at most stress and strain in two dimensions/axes;
3) the textured surfaces and grooving on each surface rotate at different angles to each other as per claim 9”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the roller shafts and rollers in the preferred embodiment are skewed in the vertical axis about 30 degrees to each other to apply force combinations; the rollers in the preferred embodiment of the invention apply stress and strain in all three dimensions/axes; the textured surfaces and grooving on each surface rotate at different angles to each other) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues “4) the textured surfaces can rotate at different speeds to each other (see, claim 6). The differential speed of the rollers in the embodiment of the invention coupled with the helical/grooved, textured surface is a further reason that none of the prior art in combination can form a product that results in the weed damage the present rollers can cause.”.” and
“Firstly, with respect to Eisenhardt (Office Action, p.5, 7): the Examiner asserts that Eisenhardt teaches that the rollers "...cause damage to weeds (97) passing between... ." Applicant respectfully disagrees. Eisenhardt does not refer to "damage to weeds". Eisenhardt cites the words "weed-pulling" (Title, Abstract, throughout the Summary, Figure 2 description, column 3, 11.10-12, and throughout columns 5 & 6). Eisenhardt refers only to weed pulling, i.e., weed removal - not to damage to weeds. Applicant cannot identify any reference to damage of weeds or the purpose of leaving the weeds in the ground to act as sacrificial organic matter under the ground to assist crop growth.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees as Eisenhardt teaches the damaging to the weeds to be the moment that the weeds are being pulled in between the rollers, the weeds are in fact being damaged. Also, the pulling of the weeds is a form of damage to weeds as the weed is no longer alive.
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claim 1 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights