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 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) 1-3, 7-9, 15, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Egger (AT 410364 B).
Regarding claim 1, Egger teaches a burn chamber (FIG. 1, cylindrical burn chamber 5) configured to receive air (combustion must use air) and biomass (“Fig. 1 shows a combustion system for solids, which is part of a heating or hot water system, not shown, for example for the purpose of hot water preparation. This system can preferably be used to burn biogenic heating materials”), wherein combustion of the biomass occurs within the burn chamber (FIG. 5); an exhaust gas outlet (“A mixer regulated to the exhaust gas temperature by means of a direct outlet flap from the combustion chamber into the chimney enables this increased performance range to be used in a controlled manner with the heat exchanger remaining the same size. ”) configured to receive exhaust gases from the burn chamber and convey the received exhaust gases to a flue (see last quote); an exhaust gas mixer positioned in the exhaust gas outlet when the biomass stove is assembled (“A mixer regulated to the exhaust gas temperature by means of a direct outlet flap from the combustion chamber into the chimney enables this increased performance range to be used in a controlled manner with the heat exchanger remaining the same size. ”).
Regarding claim 2, Egger teaches that the exhaust gas mixer is configured to disrupt flow of exhaust gases from the burn chamber to the flue such that the exhaust gases have reduced temperature variance in the flue (“A mixer regulated to the exhaust gas temperature by means of a direct outlet flap from the combustion chamber into the chimney enables this increased performance range to be used in a controlled manner with the heat exchanger remaining the same size. ”).
Regarding claim 3, Egger teaches that the biomass stove further comprises a stand (FIG. 1, double cylinder 25) configured to support the burn chamber and space the burn chamber from a surface supporting the stove (FIG. 1, the top surface of the feed line26).
Regarding claim 7, Egger teaches that the exhaust gas mixer is formed of metal (“The burner hollow body 9 [i.e., the assembly including the mixer] should be made of a high-quality steel alloy, since this enables rapid heating to the operating temperature.”).
Regarding claim 8, Egger teaches that the exhaust gas outlet comprises an outlet flange (the walls extending from the point where the outlet contacts the chamber) extending from the burn chamber; and the outlet flange is configured to connect to the flue (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Egger teaches that the exhaust gas outlet comprises an outlet flange (the walls extending from the point where the outlet contacts the chamber) extending from the burn chamber; and the outlet flange is configured to connect to the flue (FIG. 1) and the stove further comprises a standoff (FIG. 1, the pieces connecting the mixer to the rest of the assembly) configured to connect the exhaust gas mixer to the burn chamber at the outlet flange.
Regarding claim 15, Egger teaches that the stove further comprises a combustion air intake flange configured to receive combustion air and provide the received combustion air to the burn chamber (FIG. 1, the portions of the walls surrounding the feed lines 31, which supply air for combustion).
Regarding claim 16, Egger teaches that the stove further comprises a combustion air regulator (FIG. 1, valve 30, which modulates airflow in response to user input) configured to modulate a flow volume of combustion air provided to the burn chamber as a function of input from a user such that a burn rate and heat output of the stove is determined as a function the input from the user to the combustion air regulator; and the stove further comprises a combustion air intake flange configured to receive combustion air and provide the received combustion air to the combustion air regulator (FIG. 1, the portions of the walls surrounding the feed lines 31, which supply air for combustion).
Regarding claim 20, Egger teaches that the stove further comprises a plurality of secondary air tubes (FIG. 1, the secondary air tubes 31 and 27) configured to provide secondary combustion air to the burn chamber when the stove is burning biomass in the burn chamber; a first baffle (FIG. 1, the left perforated wall of openings 10, which covers some of the tubes) over the plurality of secondary air tubes when the stove is assembled and in an upright position; a second baffle (FIG. 1, the right perforated wall, part of which is located vertically higher than lower parts of the left vertical wall) over the first baffle when the stove is assembled and in the upright position; and a top wall (FIG. 1, the top wall of the burner chamber) defining a top of the burn chamber above the second baffle when the stove is assembled and in the upright position.
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggers as applied to claims 1-3, 7-9, 15, 16, and 20 above.
Regarding claim 4, Eggers fails to teach that the stove has a maximum designed output of no more than 25000 BTU of heat.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the stove output no more than 25000 BTU of heat, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the stove outputs a certain amount of heat), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves (MPEP 2144.05 II. A) only routine skill in the art.
In addition, it is observed that heat output is a result effective variable because heat output determines what uses the stove can be employed for. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the stove output no more than 25000 BTU of heat, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egger as applied to claims 1-3, 7-9, 15, 16, and 20 above in further view of Choi (US-20240307912-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Egger fails to teach that the exhaust gas mixer is a pair of opposing cones; each cone of the pair of opposing cones has a base joined to a base of the other cone of the pair of opposing cones such that a top and a bottom of the exhaust gas mixer are points of the pair of opposing cones; and the exhaust gas mixer is centered within the exhaust gas outlet.
However, Choi teaches that the exhaust gas mixer is a pair of opposing cones (FIG. 2, member 31 is a valve mad of two opposing cones); each cone of the pair of opposing cones has a base joined to a base of the other cone of the pair of opposing cones such that a top and a bottom of the exhaust gas mixer are points of the pair of opposing cones (FIG. 2); and the exhaust gas mixer is centered within the exhaust gas outlet (FIG. 2).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making the exhaust mixer a two-cone assembly, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Choi with the motivation of reducing noise by discouraging turbulent flow via a more aerodynamic valve.
Regarding claim 6, Egger fails to teach that the exhaust gas mixer is one of a pair of opposing cones, a helix, or a spiral.
However, Choi teaches that the exhaust gas mixer is one of a pair of opposing cones, a helix, or a spiral (FIG. 2, member 31 is a valve mad of two opposing cones).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making the exhaust mixer a two-cone assembly, as taught by Choi, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Choi with the motivation of reducing noise by discouraging turbulent flow via a more aerodynamic valve.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egger as applied to claims 1-3, 7-9, 15, 16, and 20 above in further view of Stewart (US 20160047551 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Egger teaches that the stove further comprises a housing (FIG. 1, the housing of the burner) at least partially surrounding the burn chamber; the exhaust gas outlet comprises an outlet flange (the walls extending from the point where the outlet contacts the chamber) extending from the burn chamber; the outlet flange is configured to connect to the flue (FIG. 1).
Egger fails to teach that the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position.
However, Stewart teaches the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position (FIG. the structure holding up the flue 7 extends upwardly).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making the flue and the surrounding structure extend upwardly from a top of the chamber, as taught by Stewart, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Stewart with the motivation of transporting hot rising exhaust air out.
Regarding claim 11, Egger teaches that the stove further comprises a housing (FIG. 1, the housing of the burner) at least partially surrounding the burn chamber; the exhaust gas outlet comprises an outlet flange (the walls extending from the point where the outlet contacts the chamber) extending from the burn chamber; the outlet flange is configured to connect to the flue(FIG. 1); the stove further comprises a standoff (FIG. 1, the pieces connecting the mixer to the rest of the assembly) configured to connect the exhaust gas mixer to the burn chamber at the outlet flange; and the standoff centers the exhaust gas mixer within the outlet flange (the pieces keep the mixer in the center of the outlet).
Egger fails to teach that the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position.
However, Stewart teaches the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position (FIG. the structure holding up the flue 7 extends upwardly).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making the flue and the surrounding structure extend upwardly from a top of the chamber, as taught by Stewart, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Stewart with the motivation of transporting hot rising exhaust air out.
Regarding claim 12, Egger teaches that the stove further comprises a housing (FIG. 1, the housing of the burner) at least partially surrounding the burn chamber; the exhaust gas outlet comprises an outlet flange (the walls extending from the point where the outlet contacts the chamber) extending from the burn chamber; the outlet flange is configured to connect to the flue(FIG. 1); the stove further comprises a standoff (FIG. 1, the pieces connecting the mixer to the rest of the assembly) configured to connect the exhaust gas mixer to the burn chamber at the outlet flange; and the standoff centers the exhaust gas mixer within the outlet flange (the pieces keep the mixer in the center of the outlet) and the exhaust gas mixer extends above the outlet flange when the stove is in an upright position (the mixer is in the flume, downstream of the flanges of the chamber wall, which is above in the combination below).
Egger fails to teach that the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position.
However, Stewart teaches the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position (FIG. the structure holding up the flue 7 extends upwardly).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making the flue and the surrounding structure extend upwardly from a top of the chamber, as taught by Stewart, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Stewart with the motivation of transporting hot rising exhaust air out.
Regarding claim 13, Egger teaches that the stove further comprises a housing (FIG. 1, the housing of the burner) at least partially surrounding the burn chamber; the exhaust gas outlet comprises an outlet flange (the walls extending from the point where the outlet contacts the chamber) extending from the burn chamber; the outlet flange is configured to connect to the flue(FIG. 1); the stove further comprises a standoff (FIG. 1, the pieces connecting the mixer to the rest of the assembly) configured to connect the exhaust gas mixer to the burn chamber at the outlet flange; and the standoff centers the exhaust gas mixer within the outlet flange (the pieces keep the mixer in the center of the outlet).
Egger fails to teach that the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position and a bottom of the exhaust gas mixer is above the housing when the stove is in the upright position.
However, Stewart teaches the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position (FIG. the structure holding up the flue 7 extends upwardly) and a bottom of the exhaust gas mixer is above the housing when the stove is in the upright position (FIG. 2, in Egger the mixer is within the flue, which, in Stewart, would put it above the chamber).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making the flue and the surrounding structure extend upwardly from a top of the chamber, as taught by Stewart, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Stewart with the motivation of transporting hot rising exhaust air out.
Claim(s) 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egger as applied to claims 1-3, 7-9, 15, 16, and 20 above in further view of Barry (US 20220268445 A1) Atemboski (US 7066170 B1), and Stewart.
Regarding claim 17, Egger teaches that the stove further comprises a combustion air regulator (FIG. 1, valve 30, which modulates airflow in response to user input) configured to modulate a flow volume of combustion air provided to the burn chamber as a function of input from a user such that a burn rate and heat output of the stove is determined as a function the input from the user to the combustion air regulator; the stove further comprises a combustion air intake flange configured to receive combustion air and provide the received combustion air to the combustion air regulator (FIG. 1, the portions of the walls surrounding the feed lines 31, which supply air for combustion); the stove further comprises a housing (FIG. 1, the housing of the burner) at least partially surrounding the burn chamber; the exhaust gas outlet comprises an outlet flange (the walls extending from the point where the outlet contacts the chamber) extending from the burn chamber; the outlet flange is configured to connect to the flue (FIG. 1).
Egger fails to teach that the stove is located in a room; the combustion air intake is configured to connect to an inlet air tube to receive air from outside of the room; said flue configured to conduct exhaust gases out of the room, and the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position.
However, Barry teaches that the stove is located in a room (FIG. paragraph 33, the assembly is in a room); the combustion air intake is configured to connect to an inlet air tube to receive air from outside of the room (FIG. paragraph 33, the assembly receives air from a tube coming from outside the room).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making it so the system pulls combustion air from outside of a room the burner is located in, as taught by Barry, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Barry with the motivation of operating independently of the ventilation system of the room.
Barry fails to teach that said flue configured to conduct exhaust gases out of the room, and the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position.
However, Atemboski teaches that said flue configured to conduct exhaust gases out of the room (col. 1, ll. 33-34, “A top-vent fireplace vents exhaust to the outside”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making it so the system exhausts combustion air to outside of a room the burner is located in, as taught by Atemboski, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Atemboski with the motivation of preventing exhaust from entering a living space.
Atembosky fails to teach that the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position.
However, Stewart teaches the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position (FIG. the structure holding up the flue 7 extends upwardly).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making the flue and the surrounding structure extend upwardly from a top of the chamber, as taught by Stewart, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Stewart with the motivation of transporting hot rising exhaust air out.
Regarding claim 18, Egger teaches that the stove further comprises a combustion air regulator (FIG. 1, valve 30, which modulates airflow in response to user input) configured to modulate a flow volume of combustion air provided to the burn chamber as a function of input from a user such that a burn rate and heat output of the stove is determined as a function the input from the user to the combustion air regulator; the stove further comprises a combustion air intake flange configured to receive combustion air and provide the received combustion air to the combustion air regulator (FIG. 1, the portions of the walls surrounding the feed lines 31, which supply air for combustion); the stove further comprises a housing (FIG. 1, the housing of the burner) at least partially surrounding the burn chamber; the exhaust gas outlet comprises an outlet flange (the walls extending from the point where the outlet contacts the chamber) extending from the burn chamber; the outlet flange is configured to connect to the flue (FIG. 1).
Egger fails to teach that the stove is located in a room; the combustion air intake is configured to connect to an inlet air tube to receive air from outside of the room; said flue configured to conduct exhaust gases out of the room, and the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position; and the stove further comprises a room air blower configured to force air from the room through a space between the housing and the burn chamber.
However, Barry teaches that the stove is located in a room (FIG. paragraph 33, the assembly is in a room); the combustion air intake is configured to connect to an inlet air tube to receive air from outside of the room (FIG. paragraph 33, the assembly receives air from a tube coming from outside the room); and the stove further comprises a room air blower (paragraph 36, room air fan 801) configured to force air from the room through a space between the housing and the burn chamber (paragraph 36, the fan 801 forces room air through a space between a housing and the firebox 107 to heat the air).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making it so the system pulls combustion air from outside of a room the burner is located in and warms room air, as taught by Barry, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Barry with the motivation of operating independently of the ventilation system of the room, and forcing convection to quickly heat the room.
Barry fails to teach that said flue configured to conduct exhaust gases out of the room, and the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position.
However, Atemboski teaches that said flue configured to conduct exhaust gases out of the room (col. 1, ll. 33-34, “A top-vent fireplace vents exhaust to the outside”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making it so the system exhausts combustion air to outside of a room the burner is located in, as taught by Atemboski, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Atemboski with the motivation of preventing exhaust from entering a living space.
Atembosky fails to teach that the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position.
However, Stewart teaches the outlet flange extends upward from the burn chamber through the housing when the stove is in an upright position (FIG. the structure holding up the flue 7 extends upwardly).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making the flue and the surrounding structure extend upwardly from a top of the chamber, as taught by Stewart, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Stewart with the motivation of transporting hot rising exhaust air out.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egger as applied to claims 1-3, 7-9, 15, 16, and 20 above in further view of Barry and Atemboski.
Regarding claim 19, Egger teaches that the stove further comprises a housing (FIG. 1, the housing of the burner) at least partially surrounding the burn chamber; the exhaust gas outlet comprises an outlet flange flange (the walls extending from the point where the outlet contacts the chamber) extending from the burn chamber; the outlet flange is configured to connect to the flue (FIG. 1).
Egger fails to teach that the stove is located in a room; said flue configured to conduct exhaust gases out of the room; the stove further comprises a room air blower configured to force air from the room through a space between the housing and the burn chamber; and the stove comprises a gap between the housing and the outlet flange such that air from the room air blower passes through the space between the housing and the burn chamber and through the gap back to the room when the room air blower is operating.
However, Barry teaches that that the stove is located in a room (FIG. paragraph 33, the assembly is in a room); the stove further comprises a room air blower (paragraph 36, room air fan 801) configured to force air from the room through a space between the housing and the burn chamber (paragraph 36, the fan 801 forces room air through a space between a housing and the firebox 107 to heat the air); and the stove comprises a gap between the housing and the outlet flange such that air from the room air blower passes through the space between the housing and the burn chamber and through the gap back to the room when the room air blower is operating (FIG. 9, the blower 801 drives air through an exterior space of the burner, including the one by flue collar 191).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making it so the system pulls combustion air from outside of a room the burner is located in and warms room air, as taught by Barry, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Barry with the motivation of operating independently of the ventilation system of the room, and forcing convection to quickly heat the room.
Barry fails to teach that said flue configured to conduct exhaust gases out of the room.
However, Atemboski teaches that said flue configured to conduct exhaust gases out of the room (col. 1, ll. 33-34, “A top-vent fireplace vents exhaust to the outside”).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Egger by making it so the system exhausts combustion air to outside of a room the burner is located in, as taught by Atemboski, with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Egger with these aforementioned teachings of Atemboski with the motivation of preventing exhaust from entering a living space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C. WEINERT whose telephone number is (571)272-6988. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/WILLIAM C WEINERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
