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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 21 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a first compliant spring connecting first anchoring portion”. It appears the term “the” is missing after the term “connecting” and before the term “first”.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recite “from the base substrate to suspended spring mass system”. It appears the term “the” is missing after the term “to” and before the term “suspended”.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “spring reduce the a shear force transfer”. One of the terms “the” or “a” should be deleted.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites “the second anchoring portion and connecting first anchoring portion”. It appears the term “the” is missing after the term “and” and before the term “connecting”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “shear reduction means” and “shock absorption means” in claim 28.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure appears to be “compliant springs” and “shock absorption springs”.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16, 17, 22, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “a third shock absorption spring extends from the second anchoring portion adjacent to a first side of the second compliant spring, and a fourth shock absorption spring extends from the second anchoring portion adjacent to a second side of the second compliant spring.”. However claim 15 from which claim 16 depends recites “each of the plurality of shock absorption springs are directly coupled to the first anchoring portion and extend adjacent to one of the first compliant spring or the second compliant spring.”. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite as it is unclear how the third and fourth shock absorption springs extend from the second anchoring portion when claim 15 recites extending from the first anchoring portion.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “the four shock absorption springs are arranged at 90 degrees with respect to each other”. However it is unclear how the four springs can lay at 90 degrees with respect to each other. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. Examiner is unsure if the claim is trying to recite that the springs are spaced at 90 degree intervals or extend along two perpendicular directions.
Regarding claim 22, recites “the first compliant spring surrounds the second anchoring portion and connects the first anchoring portion to the second anchoring portion, and a second compliant spring surrounds the third anchoring portion and connects the first anchoring portion to the third anchoring portion.”. However a “second compliant spring” is already introduced in claim 1. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites “at least one of the plurality of second anchors is connected to the cover substrate.”. However claim 1 recites the second anchors are coupled to the base substrate. Applicant’s instant specification recites connecting the electrical anchors to the cover by a separate mechanical anchor. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 27, the claim recites “a proof mass suspended from the first anchor and second anchor via one or more springs;”. However a “plurality of second anchors” is introduced. Therefore, the claim has been rendered indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, 18-23 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al US11761977 (hereinafter “Kumar”).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) sensor (MEMS system-100), comprising:
a cover substrate (cover substrate-404);
a base substrate (base substrate-402);
a first anchor (anchor-324) coupled to the cover substrate;
a plurality of second anchors (anchors-322a-b) coupled to the base substrate; and
a suspended spring-mass system (anchor system-300) within a MEMS layer positioned between the base substrate and cover substrate, the suspended spring-mass system comprising:
a proof mass (proof mass-310);
a first anchoring portion (first portion-304) coupled to the cover substrate via the first anchor;
a second anchoring portion (second portions 302a) coupled to the base substrate via a first one of the plurality of second anchors;
a third anchoring portion (second portion-302b) coupled to the base substrate via a second one of the plurality of second anchors, wherein the second anchoring portion and third anchoring portion are located on opposite sides of the first anchoring portion (see fig 3A);
a first compliant spring (first spring-306a) connecting first anchoring portion to the second anchoring portion;
a second compliant spring (first spring-306b) connecting the first anchoring portion to the third anchoring portion; and
a plurality of shock absorption springs (second springs -308a-b) coupled between the first anchoring portion and the proof mass. (See Col 7 line 25-Col 11 line 39, Figs 3A-4)
Regarding claim 2, Kumar discloses the first anchor (anchor-324) provides only mechanical anchoring to the first anchoring portion (first portion-304). (Col 7 line 55-66 and Col 8 line 6-8)
Regarding claim 3, Kumar discloses a connection of the first anchoring portion (first portion-304) to the first anchor (anchor-324) has a circular shape or an oval shape.(See Fig 3A-5, Col 3 line 34-46, Col 5 line 28-41, Col 8 line 28-42)
Regarding claim 4, Kumar discloses a second center point of the second anchoring portion (second portions-302a) and a third center point of the third anchoring portion (second portion-302b) are located equidistant from a first center point of the first anchoring portion (first portion-304). (Col 9 line 20-37)
Regarding claim 5, Kumar discloses the second anchoring portion (second portions -302a) and the third anchoring portion (second portions- 302b) have an identical shape and area. (Col 7 line 44-Col 8 line 5, Col 9 line 20-37, Figs 3A-5)
Regarding claim 6, Kumar discloses the identical shape is a rectangular shape or a square shape. (Col 7 line 44-Col 8 line 5, Col 9 line 20-37, Figs 3A-5)
Regarding claim 8, Kumar discloses the first compliant spring (first spring-306a) includes a first surrounding portion that surrounds the second anchoring portion (second portion-302a) and the second compliant spring (first spring-306b) includes a second surrounding portion that surrounds the third anchoring portion (second portion-302b). .(See Fig 3A-5, Col 3 line 34-46, Col 5 line 28-41, Col 8 line 28-42)
Regarding claim 9, Kumar discloses the first compliant spring (first spring-306a) further comprises a first connection that connects the second anchoring portion (second portion-302a) to the first surrounding portion and a second connection that connects the first anchoring portion (first portion-304) to the first surrounding portion, and wherein the second compliant spring (first spring-306b) further comprises a third connection that connects the third anchoring portion(second portion-302b) to the second surrounding portion and a fourth connection that connects the first anchoring portion (first portion-304) to the second surrounding portion. (See Fig 3A-5, Col 7 line 25- Col 9 line 37)
Regarding claim 10, Kumar discloses the plurality of second anchors (anchors-322a-b) each provide an electrical connection from the base substrate (substrate-402) to suspended spring-mass system (anchor system-300). (See Col 7 line 44-Col 8 line 5)
Regarding claim 11, Kumar discloses the base substrate (substrate-402) comprises processing circuitry wherein the electrical connection is coupled to the processing circuitry. (Col 10 line 11-26)
Regarding claim 12, Kumar discloses the processing circuitry comprises CMOS circuitry. (Col 10 line 11-26)
Regarding claim 13, Kumar discloses the first anchoring portion (first portion-304) comprises a first anchored portion directly coupled to the first anchor (anchor-324) and a first surrounding shape, the second anchoring portion (second portions 302a) comprises a second anchored portion directly coupled to the first one of the plurality of second anchors (anchors-322a-b) and a second surrounding shape, and the third anchoring portion (second portion-302b) comprises a third anchored portion directly coupled to the second one of the plurality of second anchors (anchors-322a-b) and a third surrounding shape. (See Fig 3A-5, Col 7 line 25- Col 9 line 37)
Regarding claim 14, Kumar discloses the plurality of shock absorption springs (second springs -308a-b) are arranged at multiple locations around the first anchoring portion (first portion-304) and equidistant to the first anchoring portion. (Col 8 line 6-27, Col 9 line 20-37, Figs 3A-5)
Regarding claim 15, Kumar discloses each of the plurality of shock absorption springs (second springs -308a-b) are directly coupled to the first anchoring portion (first portion-304) and extend adjacent to one of the first compliant spring (first spring-306a) or the second compliant spring (first spring-306b).
Regarding claim 18, Kumar discloses the plurality of shock absorption springs (second springs -308a-b) are arranged symmetrically around the first anchoring portion (first portion-304). (See Fig 3, Col 8 line 43-Col 9 line 37)
Regarding claim 19, Kumar discloses each shock absorbing spring (second springs -308a-b) of the plurality of shock absorbing springs is compliant to a force between the first anchoring portion (first portion-304) and the proof mass (proof mass-310) when the MEMS sensor is exposed to a shock. (Col 11 line 59-Col 12 line 29, claim 2)
Regarding claim 20, Kumar discloses a plurality of sense springs (sense springs-318a-b, 602a-b) that couples the proof mass (proof mass-310) to the plurality of shock absorption springs (second springs -308a-b). (Col 9 line 38-54, Col 12 line 30-Col 13 line 10)
Regarding claim 21, Kumar discloses each of the first compliant spring (first spring-306a) and the second compliant spring (first spring-306b) reduce the a shear force transfer between the first anchoring portion (first portion-304) and each of the second anchoring portion (second portions 302a) and third anchoring portion (second portions 302b). (Col 3 line 9-46, Col 5 line 3-27, Col 7 line 44- Col 8 line 42, Col 10 line 38- Col 11 line 39)
Regarding clam 22, Kumar discloses the first compliant spring (first spring-306a) surrounds the second anchoring portion (second portions 302a) and connects the first anchoring portion (first portion-304) to the second anchoring portion, and a second compliant spring (first spring-306b) surrounds the third anchoring portion (second portion-302b) and connects the first anchoring portion to the third anchoring portion. (See Fig 3A)
Regarding claim 23, Kumar discloses the MEMS sensor (System-100) comprises a z-axis accelerometer (Col 7 line 4-43), and wherein the proof mass (mass-210) is configured to move out of plane in response to a linear acceleration force in a z-axis direction. (Col 9 line 11-67)
Regarding claim 25, Kumar discloses the MEMS sensor comprises any of a gyroscope, pressure sensor, magnetometer or a microphone. (Col 7 line 30-35, Fig 3A)
Regarding claim 26, Kumar discloses at least one of the plurality of second anchors (anchors-322a-b) is connected to the cover substrate (cover substrate-404). (Col 7 line 44-Col 8 line 5, Col 10 line 38-59, See Fig 4)
Regarding independent claim 27, Kumar discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) sensor (MEMS system-100), comprising:
a cover substrate (cover substrate-404);
a base substrate (base substrate-402);
a first anchor (anchor-324) coupled to the cover substrate;
a plurality of second anchors (anchors-322a-b) coupled to the base substrate; and
a suspended spring-mass system (anchor system-300) within a MEMS layer positioned between the base substrate and cover substrate, the suspended spring-mass system comprising:
a proof mass (proof mass-310) suspended from the first anchor and second anchor via one or more springs (See Fig 3a-b, Col 7 line 25-43 );
a first anchoring portion (first portion-304) coupled to the cover substrate via the first anchor;
a second anchoring portion (second portions-302a) coupled to the base substrate via a first one of the plurality of second anchors;
a third anchoring portion (second portion-302b) coupled to the base substrate via a second one of the plurality of second anchors, wherein the second anchoring portion and third anchoring portion are located on opposite sides of the first anchoring portion (See Fig 3A, Col 7 line 44-46);
a first compliant spring (first spring-306a) of the one or more springs surrounding the second anchoring portion and connecting first anchoring portion to the second anchoring portion (See Fig 3A, Col 7 line 44-65, Col 8 line 14-17); and
a second compliant spring (first spring-306b) of the one or more springs surrounding the third anchoring portion and connecting the first anchoring portion to the third anchoring portion. (See Fig 3A, Col 7 line 44-65, Col 8 line 14-17). (See Col 7 line 25-Col 11 line 39, Figs 3A-4)
Regarding independent claim 28, Kumar discloses a microelectromechanical system (MEMS) sensor (MEMS system-100), comprising:
a cover substrate (cover substrate-404);
a base substrate (base substrate-402);
a first anchor (anchor-324) coupled to the cover substrate;
a plurality of second anchors (anchors-322a-b) coupled to the base substrate; and
a suspended spring-mass system (anchor system-300) within a MEMS layer positioned between the base substrate and cover substrate, the suspended spring-mass system comprising:
a proof mass (proof mass-310);
a first anchoring portion (first portion-304) coupled to the cover substrate via the first anchor;
a plurality of second anchoring portions (second portions-302a) coupled to the base substrate via a respective one of the plurality of second anchors;
a shear reduction means (first springs 306a-b) for isolating the first anchoring portion from a shear force at the plurality of second anchoring portions; and
a shock absorption means (second springs-308a-b) located between the first anchoring portion and the proof mass for absorbing a shock force at the first anchoring portion. (Col 7 line 25-Col 11 line 39, Figs 3A-4)
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 7, 16, 17 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al US11761977 (hereinafter “Kumar”) in view of Sharma et al US20230365397 (hereinafter “Sharma”).
Regarding claim 7, Kumar discloses the sensor according to claim 1.
However, Kumar fails to disclose the first compliant spring and the second compliant spring each have a lower stiffness than the plurality of shock absorption springs. Sharma discloses the first compliant spring and the second compliant spring (compliant springs 220-234) each have a lower stiffness than the plurality of shock absorption springs (springs 204-218). (Paragraph 0029-0036, Fig 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Sharma into Kumar for the purpose of decreasing potential damage. The modification would allow for absorbing harsh accelerations.
Regarding claim 16, Kumar discloses the sensor according to claim 15.
However, Kumar fails to disclose the plurality of shock absorption springs comprise four shock absorption springs, and wherein a first shock absorption spring extends from the first anchoring portion adjacent to a first side of the first compliant spring, a second shock absorption spring extends from the first anchoring portion adjacent to a second side of the first compliant spring, a third shock absorption spring extends from the second anchoring portion adjacent to a first side of the second compliant spring, and a fourth shock absorption spring extends from the second anchoring portion adjacent to a second side of the second compliant spring. Sharma discloses the plurality of shock absorption springs (springs 204-218) comprise four shock absorption springs (See fig 2), and wherein a first shock absorption spring extends from the first anchoring portion adjacent to a first side of the first compliant spring, a second shock absorption spring extends from the first anchoring portion adjacent to a second side of the first compliant spring, a third shock absorption spring extends from the second anchoring portion adjacent to a first side of the second compliant spring, and a fourth shock absorption spring extends from the second anchoring portion adjacent to a second side of the second compliant spring. (Paragraph 0027-0036, Fig 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Sharma into Kumar for the purpose of decreasing potential damage. The modification would allow for absorbing harsh accelerations.
Regarding claim 17, Kumar discloses the sensor according to claim 16.
However, Kumar fails to disclose the four shock absorption springs are arranged at 90 degrees with respect to each other. Sharma discloses the four shock absorption springs (springs 204-218) are arranged at 90 degrees with respect to each other. (Paragraph 0027-0036, Fig 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Sharma into Kumar for the purpose of decreasing potential damage. The modification would allow for absorbing harsh accelerations.
Regarding claim 24, Kumar discloses the sensor according to claim 1.
However, Kumar fails to disclose the MEMS sensor comprises an x-axis or y-axis accelerometer, and wherein the proof mass is configured to move in plane in response to a linear acceleration force in a x-axis or y-axis direction. Sharma discloses the MEMS sensor (sensor-100) comprises an x-axis or y-axis accelerometer, and wherein the proof mass (proof mass-238) is configured to move in plane in response to a linear acceleration force in a x-axis or y-axis direction. (Paragraph 0022, 0027)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Sharma into Kumar for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for an increase in sensitivity and increased linear responses.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Invensense Inc. WO2021050238 discloses a tilting z-axis, out-of-plane sensing MEMS accelerometers and associated structures and configurations are described. Disclosed embodiments facilitate improved offset stabilization. Non-limiting embodiments provide exemplary MEMS structures and apparatuses characterized by one or more of having a sensing MEMS structure that is symmetric about the axis orthogonal to the springs or flexible coupling axis, a spring or flexible coupling axis that is aligned to one of the symmetry axes of the electrodes pattern, a different number of reference electrodes and sense electrodes, a reference MEMS structure having at least two symmetry axes, one which is along the axis of the springs or flexible coupling, and/or a reference structure below the spring or flexible coupling axis.
Hammer US20140352433 discloses a micromechanical sensor comprising a substrate (5) and at least one mass (6) which is situated on the substrate (5) and which moves relative to the substrate (5) is used to detect motions of the sensor due to an acceleration force and/or Coriolis force which occur(s). The mass (6) and the substrate (5) and/or two masses (5, 7) which move toward one another are connected by at least one bending spring device (6). The bending spring device (6) has a spring bar (9) and a meander (10), provided thereon, having a circle of curvature (K1; K6; K8; K9; K11) whose midpoint (MP1; MP6; MP8; MP9; MP11) and radius of curvature (r1; r6; r8; r9; r11) are inside the meander (10). For reducing stresses that occur, in addition to the radius of curvature (r1; r6; r8; r9; r11) having the inner midpoint (MP1; MP6; MP8; MP9; MP11), the meander (10) has at least one further radius of curvature (r2; r3; r4; r5; r7; r10) having a midpoint (MP2; MP3; MP4; MP5; MP7; MP10) outside the meander (10). The at least one further radius of curvature (r2; r3; r4; r5; r7; r10) is situated between the meander (10) and the spring bar (9).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/ /Eric S. McCall/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2856
