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
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Great Brittan Patent No. GB2440822 issued to Mercy.
Regarding claim 1,
Mercy discloses a bed sheet system comprising: a fitted sheet (Mercy: FIG. 1 (2)) configured to fit over a mattress, (Mercy: FIG. 1) wherein the fitted sheet comprises a first connecting panel; (Mercy: FIG. 2 (40) wherein the top portion may be interpreted as the first connecting panel) a top sheet configured to fit over the fitted sheet wherein the top sheet comprises a second connecting panel; (Mercy: FIG. 2 (44)) and wherein the first connecting panel and the second connecting panel comprise an open-ended zipper assembly that zips together to connect the first connecting panel together with the second connecting panel. (Mercy: FIG. 1 (34, 36))
Regarding claim 2,
Mercy discloses the bed sheet system of claim 1, wherein the first connecting panel and the second connecting panel are disposed at a foot of the mattress. (Mercy: FIG. 1 (2, 6) are disposed at a foot of the mattress)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercy in view of U.S. Publication No. 20230240455 issued to Rupert.
Regarding claim 3,
Mercy discloses the bed sheet system of claim 1.
Mercy does not appear to disclose wherein the first connecting panel and the second connecting panel each include navigation patches that are matched together during assembly to properly orient the fitted sheet with respect to the top sheet.
However, Rupert discloses wherein the first connecting panel and the second connecting panel each include navigation patches that are matched together during assembly to properly orient the fitted sheet with respect to the top sheet. (Rupert: FIG. 7 (102, 106, 110) all act as navigation patches that get matched together)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mercy by adding navigation patches as taught in Rupert since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of helping a user to easily grasp the sheets while saving time in getting the orientation right when placing on a mattress.
Regarding claim 4,
Mercy discloses the bed sheet system of claim 1.
Mercy does not appear to disclose wherein the navigation patches of the first connecting panel and the second connecting panel are configured to the fitted sheet and the top sheet, respectively, generally at a foot of the mattress.
However, Rupert discloses wherein the navigation patches of the first connecting panel and the second connecting panel are configured to the fitted sheet and the top sheet, (Rupert: FIG. 7 (102, 106, 110) all act as navigation patches that get matched together)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mercy by adding navigation patches as taught in Rupert since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of helping a user to easily grasp the sheets while saving time in getting the orientation right when placing on a mattress.
Rupert in view of Mercy does not appear to disclose respectively, generally at a foot of the mattress.
However, this difference constitutes a mere change in placement of a known feature that performs the same function in the same way to achieve the same result. Absent any indication that the claimed location produced a new or unexpected result or cooperates with the structure in a different manner, the particular placement of the alignment patches is considered an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950)
Regarding claim 5,
Mercy discloses the bed sheet system of claim 1, wherein the fitted sheet comprises: an opening for receiving the mattress; a band of elastic material configured to traverse around a perimeter of the opening; (Mercy: FIG. 3 see also page 14 lines 15-25 which talks about the elasticized boarder (56)
Mercy does not appear to disclose a band of stretch fabric material configured and attached to the band of elastic material, wherein the band of stretch fabric transitions and is further connected to a remaining material of the fitted sheet.
However, Rupert discloses a band of stretch fabric material configured and attached to the band of elastic material, wherein the band of stretch fabric transitions and is further connected to a remaining material of the fitted sheet. (Rupert: FIG. 3 (34) is a band of stretch fabric material attached to elastic material (30)) It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mercy by adding a band of stretch fabric attached to the band of elastic material as taught in Rupert since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for mattresses of bigger sizes to essentially fit into the bottom sheet and make it easier to attach a sheet to a mattress.
Regarding claim 6,
Mercy in view of Rupert discloses the bed sheet system of claim 5, wherein the band of stretch fabric material comprises stretch polyester (Rupert: [0057])
Mercy in view of Rupert does not appear to disclose having a width of approximately 3-7 inches.
However, [0062] describes routine design trade-offs associated with selecting the width and material of a stretch fabric band. The specification explains that narrower bands provide less strength while wider bands make removal more difficult, indicating that the claimed range represents a balance of known considerations rather than an unexpected result. Such optimization of a result-effective variable does not confer patentability. Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to design the stretch fabric to be between the given ranges because they represent known considerations rather than an unexpected result. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077 (CCPA 1972).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercy in view of U.S. Publication No. 20230240455 issued to Rupert further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20120260424 issued to Agarwall.
Regarding claim 7,
Mercy in view of Rupert discloses the bed sheet system of claim 5.
Mercy in view of Rupert does not appear to disclose wherein the band of elastic material comprises an approximately ½ - 1 inch width rubber grip elastic.
However, Agarwall discloses wherein the band of elastic material … rubber grip elastic. (Agarwall: [0012])
It would have been obvious to modify the elastic material of Mercy in view of Rupert to be made from rubber as taught by Agarwall since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemicical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
Mercy in view of Rupert in view of Agarwall does not appear to disclose the specific dimension of the elastic material.
However, the recited width of the rubber grip elastic represents an optimization of a known elastic retention element. The prior art teaches the use of elastic bands to retain fitted sheets on a mattress, and the width of such elastic bands is a result-effective variable that predictably affects holding force and ease of removal. Selecting an elastic width within the claimed range would have been a routine design choice determined through ordinary experimentation, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077 (CCPA 1972).
Claim(s) 8, 12-14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercy in view of U.S. Publication No. 20230200572 issued to Ginberg.
Regarding claim 8,
Mercy discloses the bed sheet system of claim 1.
Mercy does not appear to disclose wherein the top sheet includes an open-ended separating zipper along a top surface of the top sheet, wherein the open-ended separating zipper is configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the top surface of the top sheet generally along a perimeter thereof.
However, Ginberg discloses wherein the top sheet includes an open-ended separating zipper along a top surface of the top sheet, wherein the open-ended separating zipper is configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the top surface of the top sheet generally along a perimeter thereof. (Ginberg: [0053] “As shown here, the top duvet cover panel 104 lacks connector elements to pass through the filler blanket, although it still includes means to connect to the bottom duvet cover panel 102 along the edges of the duvet cover panels 102, 104, such as zipper elements. Instead, the blanket body 210 includes connector elements such as connector elements 904, 906 that connect to corresponding connector elements on the bottom duvet cover panel 102, such as connector element 902.” Wherein the zippers would otherwise be included on the top surface of the top sheet of Mercy and would traverse the sides and the bottom of the top surface of the top sheet of Mercy)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mercy by adding zippers as taught in Ginberg since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing the top sheet to serve as a duvet cover and allow for removability of the layers to make it easier to wash.
Regarding claim 11,
Mercy in view of Ginsberg discloses the bed sheet system of claim 8, further comprising: a duvet cover, wherein the duvet cover includes an open-ended separating zipper along a bottom surface configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the bottom surface of the duvet cover generally along a perimeter thereof. (Ginsberg: FIG. 1 (106, 108, 110) can be joined via zippers)
Regarding claim 12,
Mercy in view of Ginsberg discloses the bed sheet system of claim 11, wherein the top sheet is configured to connect to the duvet cover via the open-ended separating zipper in an assembly. (Ginsberg: FIG. 1)
Regarding claim 13,
Mercy in view of Ginsberg discloses the bed sheet system of claim 12, further comprising: a duvet insert, wherein the duvet insert is received between the top sheet and duvet cover during assembly. (Mercy: FIG. 2 (54))
Regarding claim 14,
Mercy in view of Ginsberg discloses the bed sheet system of claim 13, wherein the duvet insert is configured to attach to the … cover. (Mercy: FIG. 4 (66))
Mercy does not appear to disclose attaching specifically to the duvet cover.
However, Ginsberg discloses attaching specifically to the duvet cover. (Ginsberg: FIGS. 1-2, show how the duvet cover attaches to the duvet insert)
It would have been obvious forone having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the fasteners of Mercy so that they connect to the duvet cover instead of the top sheet as taught in Ginsberg since this difference constitutes a mere change in placement of a known feature that performs the same function in the same way to achieve the same result. Absent any indication that the claimed location produced a new or unexpected result or cooperates with the structure in a different manner, the particular placement of the fasteners is considered an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019 (CCPA 1950)
Regarding claim 18,
Mercy discloses a bed sheet system comprising: a fitted sheet (Mercy: FIG. 1 (2)) configured to fit over a mattress, (Mercy: FIG. 1) wherein the fitted sheet comprises a first connecting panel; (Mercy: FIG. 2 (40) wherein the top portion may be interpreted as the first connecting panel) a top sheet configured to fit over the fitted sheet wherein the top sheet comprises a second connecting panel; (Mercy: FIG. 2 (44)) and wherein the first connecting panel and the second connecting panel comprise an open-ended zipper assembly that zips together to connect the first connecting panel together with the second connecting panel, (Mercy: FIG. 1 (34, 36)) … and a duvet insert disposed between the top sheet and duvet cover in an assembly. (Mercy: FIG. 2 (54))
Mercy does not appear to disclose wherein the top sheet includes an open-ended separating zipper along a top surface of the top sheet, wherein the open-ended separating zipper is configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the top surface of the top sheet generally along a perimeter thereof wherein the duvet cover includes an open-ended separating zipper along a bottom surface configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the bottom surface of the duvet cover generally along a perimeter thereof, wherein the top sheet is configured to connect to the duvet cover via the open-ended separating zipper in an assembly;
However, Ginberg discloses wherein the top sheet includes an open-ended separating zipper along a top surface of the top sheet, wherein the open-ended separating zipper is configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the top surface of the top sheet generally along a perimeter thereof (Ginberg: [0053] “As shown here, the top duvet cover panel 104 lacks connector elements to pass through the filler blanket, although it still includes means to connect to the bottom duvet cover panel 102 along the edges of the duvet cover panels 102, 104, such as zipper elements. Instead, the blanket body 210 includes connector elements such as connector elements 904, 906 that connect to corresponding connector elements on the bottom duvet cover panel 102, such as connector element 902.” Wherein the zippers would otherwise be included on the top surface of the top sheet of Mercy and would traverse the sides and the bottom of the top surface of the top sheet of Mercy) wherein the duvet cover includes an open-ended separating zipper along a bottom surface configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the bottom surface of the duvet cover generally along a perimeter thereof, wherein the top sheet is configured to connect to the duvet cover via the open-ended separating zipper in an assembly; (Ginberg: See FIG. 1 and [0053] “As shown here, the top duvet cover panel 104 lacks connector elements to pass through the filler blanket, although it still includes means to connect to the bottom duvet cover panel 102 along the edges of the duvet cover panels 102, 104, such as zipper elements. Instead, the blanket body 210 includes connector elements such as connector elements 904, 906 that connect to corresponding connector elements on the bottom duvet cover panel 102, such as connector element 902.” Wherein the zippers would otherwise be included on the bottom surface of the duvet cover of Mercy and would traverse the sides of the bottom of the bottom surface of the duvet cover of Mercy)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mercy by adding zippers as taught in Ginberg since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing the top sheet to serve as a duvet cover and allow for removability of the layers to make it easier to wash.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercy in view of U.S. Publication No. 20120074021 issued to Ravary.
Regarding claim 9,
Mercy discloses the bed sheet system of claim 1.
Mercy does not specifically disclose wherein the top sheet includes a fold over portion generally disposed at a top of the top sheet, wherein the fold over portion includes a retainer for retaining the fold over portion together when folded.
However, Ravary discusses wherein the top sheet includes a fold over portion generally disposed at a top of the top sheet, wherein the fold over portion includes a retainer for retaining the fold over portion together when folded. (Ravary: FIGS. 9-12 shows a sheet being folded along with a retainer (3))
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mercy by folding it and adding a retainer as taught by Ravary since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing the top sheet to fold and be stored away in a closet when not in use.
Regarding claim 10,
Mercy in view of Ravary discloses the bed sheet system of claim 9, wherein the retainer includes snaps. (Ravary: [0055] mentions snaps)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercy and Ginsberg further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20220248865 issued to Zhou.
Regarding claim 16,
Mercy in view of Ginsberg discloses the bed sheet system of claim 13.
Mercy in view of Ginsberg does not appear to disclose wherein the duvet cover includes folded areas for receiving portions of the duvet insert along a bottom surface of the duvet cover.
However, Zhou discloses wherein the duvet cover includes folded areas for receiving portions of the duvet insert along a bottom surface of the duvet cover. (Zhou: FIG. 4A (200))
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mercy in view of Ravary in view of Ginsberg by adding a folded portion i.e. a pocket as taught in Zhou directed to a duvet cover since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing for the duvet to be secured in the pocket to avoid bunching.
Claim(s) 17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mercy and Ginsberg further in view of U.S. Publication No. 20230240455 issued to Rupert.
Regarding claim 17,
Mercy in view of Ginsberg discloses the bed sheet system of claim 11.
Mercy does not appear to disclose wherein the duvet cover includes a navigation patch at a disposed position, wherein the duvet cover is oriented by matching the navigation patch of the duvet cover with the navigation patches of the fitted sheet and the top sheet to properly orient the duvet cover with respect to the fitted sheet and the top sheet.
However, Rupert discloses wherein the duvet cover includes a navigation patch at a disposed position, wherein the duvet cover is oriented by matching the navigation patch of the duvet cover with the navigation patches of the fitted sheet and the top sheet to properly orient the duvet cover with respect to the fitted sheet and the top sheet. (Rupert: FIG. 7 (102, 106, 110) all act as navigation patches that get matched together)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mercy by adding navigation patches to the sheets as taught in Rupert since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of helping a user to easily grasp the sheets while saving time in getting the orientation right when placing on a mattress.
Regarding claim 18,
Mercy discloses a bed sheet system comprising: a fitted sheet (Mercy: FIG. 1 (2)) configured to fit over a mattress, (Mercy: FIG. 1) wherein the fitted sheet comprises a first connecting panel; (Mercy: FIG. 2 (40) wherein the top portion may be interpreted as the first connecting panel) a top sheet configured to fit over the fitted sheet wherein the top sheet comprises a second connecting panel; (Mercy: FIG. 2 (44)) and wherein the first connecting panel and the second connecting panel comprise an open-ended zipper assembly that zips together to connect the first connecting panel together with the second connecting panel, (Mercy: FIG. 1 (34, 36)) … and a duvet insert disposed between the top sheet and duvet cover in an assembly. (Mercy: FIG. 2 (54))
Mercy does not appear to disclose wherein the top sheet includes an open-ended separating zipper along a top surface of the top sheet, wherein the open-ended separating zipper is configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the top surface of the top sheet generally along a perimeter thereof wherein the duvet cover includes an open-ended separating zipper along a bottom surface configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the bottom surface of the duvet cover generally along a perimeter thereof, wherein the top sheet is configured to connect to the duvet cover via the open-ended separating zipper in an assembly;
However, Ginberg discloses wherein the top sheet includes an open-ended separating zipper along a top surface of the top sheet, wherein the open-ended separating zipper is configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the top surface of the top sheet generally along a perimeter thereof (Ginberg: [0053] “As shown here, the top duvet cover panel 104 lacks connector elements to pass through the filler blanket, although it still includes means to connect to the bottom duvet cover panel 102 along the edges of the duvet cover panels 102, 104, such as zipper elements. Instead, the blanket body 210 includes connector elements such as connector elements 904, 906 that connect to corresponding connector elements on the bottom duvet cover panel 102, such as connector element 902.” Wherein the zippers would otherwise be included on the top surface of the top sheet of Mercy and would traverse the sides and the bottom of the top surface of the top sheet of Mercy) wherein the duvet cover includes an open-ended separating zipper along a bottom surface configured to traverse sides and a bottom of the bottom surface of the duvet cover generally along a perimeter thereof, wherein the top sheet is configured to connect to the duvet cover via the open-ended separating zipper in an assembly; (Ginberg: See FIG. 1 and [0053] “As shown here, the top duvet cover panel 104 lacks connector elements to pass through the filler blanket, although it still includes means to connect to the bottom duvet cover panel 102 along the edges of the duvet cover panels 102, 104, such as zipper elements. Instead, the blanket body 210 includes connector elements such as connector elements 904, 906 that connect to corresponding connector elements on the bottom duvet cover panel 102, such as connector element 902.” Wherein the zippers would otherwise be included on the bottom surface of the duvet cover of Mercy and would traverse the sides of the bottom of the bottom surface of the duvet cover of Mercy)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mercy by adding zippers as taught in Ginberg since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of allowing the top sheet to serve as a duvet cover and allow for removability of the layers to make it easier to wash.
Regarding claim 19,
Mercy in view of Ginsberg discloses a method of assembling a bed sheet system comprising: fitting a fitted sheet over a mattress, wherein the fitted sheet comprises a first connecting panel (Mercy: FIG. 2 (40) wherein the top portion may be interpreted as the first connecting panel) …
Mercy in view of Ginsberg does not appear to disclose having a first navigation patch; wherein the top sheet comprises a second connecting panel having a second navigation patch; aligning the first navigation patch with the second navigation patch to orient the fitted sheet with respect to the top sheet; and connecting the first connecting panel to the second connecting panel.
However, Rupert discloses having a first navigation patch; wherein the top sheet comprises a second connecting panel having a second navigation patch; aligning the first navigation patch with the second navigation patch to orient the fitted sheet with respect to the top sheet; and connecting the first connecting panel to the second connecting panel. (Rupert: FIG. 7 (102, 106, 110) all act as navigation patches that get matched together)
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mercy by adding navigation patches as taught in Rupert since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined or modified the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification or addition would have yielded the predicted result of helping a user to easily grasp the sheets while saving time in getting the orientation right when placing on a mattress.
Regarding claim 20,
Mercy in view of Ginsberg in view of Rupert discloses a method of claim 19, further comprising: orienting a duvet cover over the top sheet, wherein the duvet cover comprises a navigation patch; aligning the third navigation patch with the first navigation patch and the second navigation patch to orient the duvet cover with respect to the fitted sheet and the top sheet; (Rupert: FIG. 7 (102, 106, 110) all act as navigation patches that get matched together) connecting a bottom side of the duvet cover to a top side of the top sheet to form a receiving area; inserting a duvet insert within the receiving area. (Mercy: FIG. 2 (54))
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C ORTIZ whose telephone number is (303)297-4378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am-3:30 pm.
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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
/ADAM C ORTIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673