DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of wording in Line 2. Replacing “one or more wall” with “one or more walls” is suggested. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Line 2. Replacing “one or more wall” with “one or more walls” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Line 2. Replacing “cover comprises access opening” with “cover comprises an access opening” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Lines 4-5. Replacing “extending through one of a wall of the one or more walls” with “extending through one wall of the at least one wall” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Line 1. Replacing “The fuel tank assembly of Claim 6” with “The fuel tank assembly of Claim 9” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Line 2. Replacing “cover comprises access opening” with “cover comprises an access opening” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality wording in Lines 3-4. Replacing “the same wall of the one or more walls as the tank supply port; and a different wall of the one or more walls as the tank supply port” with “the same wall, of the at least one wall, as the tank supply port; and a different wall, of the at least one wall, as the tank supply port” is suggested, for consistency with Claim 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informality wording in Lines 3-6. Replacing “the same wall of the one or more walls as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port; and a different wall of the one or more walls as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port” with “the same wall, of the at least one wall, as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port; and a different wall, of the at least one wall, as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port” is suggested, for consistency with Claim 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Line 9. Replacing “one or more walls” with “at least one wall” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informality wording in Lines 3-4. Replacing “the same wall of the one or more walls as the tank supply port; and a different wall of the one or more walls as the tank supply port” with “the same wall, of the at least one wall, as the tank supply port; and a different wall, of the at least one wall, as the tank supply port” is suggested, for consistency with Claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informality wording in Lines 3-6. Replacing “the same wall of the one or more walls as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port; and a different wall of the one or more walls as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port” with “the same wall, of the at least one wall, as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port; and a different wall, of the at least one wall, as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port” is suggested, for consistency with Claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischerkeller et al. (US 6436287 B1) (hereinafter “Fischerkeller”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Fischerkeller teaches a fuel tank assembly comprising: a fuel tank having one or more wall; a fuel pump disposed within an interior space of the fuel tank; a tank supply port disposed in and extending through a wall of the one or more walls, the tank supply port fluidly connected to the fuel pump [Fischerkeller Fig. 1, Reference Characters 14 (fuel tank); 18, 22, and 26 (walls); 10 (fuel pump); and 94 (tank supply port); Fischerkeller Abstract: “A fuel pump module including a fuel reservoir, a fuel pump communicating with the fuel reservoir and having a fuel outlet”]; and an engine supply conduit connectable to the tank supply port such that the engine supply conduit is fluidly connected to the fuel pump [Fischerkeller Paragraph 7: “The flange 82 further includes an outlet port 94 that allows fuel to exit the fuel tank 14 and enter the external portion of the fuel system (not shown).”; Fischerkeller Paragraph 14: “Appropriate connection lines 142 can be connected to the electrical connector 90, the outlet port 94”].
Regarding Claim 7, Fischerkeller teaches the fuel tank assembly of Claim 1 further comprising a fuel return port disposed in and extending through one of: the same wall of the one or more walls as the tank supply port; and a different wall of the one or more walls as the tank supply port, wherein the fuel return port is structured and operable to be connectable to a fuel return conduit of a vehicle in which the fuel tank assembly is disposed [Fischerkeller Fig. 1, Reference Character 98; Fischerkeller Paragraph 7: “The flange 82 also includes an inlet port 98 that allows unused fuel to be returned to the fuel tank 14.”].
Claims 15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischerkeller et al. (US 6436287 B1) (hereinafter “Fischerkeller”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 15, Fischerkeller teaches a vehicle comprising; a chassis; a plurality of wheels operatively connected to the chassis; a passenger compartment supported by the chassis [Fischerkeller Paragraph 6: “The size and shape of a fuel tank is dictated by the available space under the vehicle body…install it under the back seat of the passenger compartment.”]; and a fuel tank assembly, the assembly comprising: a fuel tank having at least one wall; a fuel pump disposed within an interior space of the fuel tank; a tank supply port disposed in and extending through a wall of the one or more walls, the tank supply port fluidly connected to the fuel pump [Fischerkeller Fig. 1, Reference Characters 14 (fuel tank); 18, 22, and 26 (walls); 10 (fuel pump); and 94 (tank supply port); Fischerkeller Abstract: “A fuel pump module including a fuel reservoir, a fuel pump communicating with the fuel reservoir and having a fuel outlet”]; and an engine supply conduit connectable to the tank supply port such that the engine supply conduit is fluidly connected to the fuel pump [Fischerkeller Paragraph 7: “The flange 82 further includes an outlet port 94 that allows fuel to exit the fuel tank 14 and enter the external portion of the fuel system (not shown).”; Fischerkeller Paragraph 14: “Appropriate connection lines 142 can be connected to the electrical connector 90, the outlet port 94”].
Regarding Claim 21, Fischerkeller teaches the fuel tank assembly of Claim 15, wherein the fuel tank assembly further comprises a fuel return port disposed in and extending through one of: the same wall of the one or more walls as the tank supply port; and a different wall of the one or more walls as the tank supply port, wherein the fuel return port is structured and operable to be connectable to a fuel return conduit of a vehicle in which the fuel tank assembly is disposed [Fischerkeller Fig. 1, Reference Character 98; Fischerkeller Paragraph 7: “The flange 82 also includes an inlet port 98 that allows unused fuel to be returned to the fuel tank 14.”].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischerkeller et al. (US 6436287 B1) (hereinafter “Fischerkeller”) in view of Kim (CN 101559713 B). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 4, Fischerkeller teaches a fuel tank assembly but does not teach a fuel tank cover. Kim teaches the fuel tank assembly of Claim 1 further comprising a protective fuel tank cover that is structured and operable to be disposed over two or more sides of the fuel tank when the fuel tank is secured to a vehicle [Kim Fig. 1, Reference Character 10]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fuel tank assembly of Fischerkeller to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a protective fuel tank cover in view of Kim. It should be noted that while Kim does not explicitly provide a motivation for including a protective fuel tank cover, protective fuel tank covers are common in the art. Protective fuel tank covers prevent damage to the fuel tank during installation in a vehicle and serve as heat shields to limit heat transfer to the vehicle body, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 5, Fischerkeller teaches a fuel tank but does not teach a fuel tank cover. Kim teaches the fuel tank assembly of Claim 4, wherein the protective fuel tank cover comprises access opening formed within the protective fuel tank cover to provide access to the fuel pump [Kim Fig. 1, Reference Character 11]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fuel tank assembly of Fischerkeller to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a protective fuel tank cover comprising an access opening in view of Kim. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fischerkeller and Kim because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating maintenance and repair of the fuel pump module after vehicle sale, as recognized by Kim [Kim Paragraph 0036: “the member 40 for covering the cabin bottom plate 10 hole 11 is very useful and commonly called an “A.S.” cover (After-sale Service).” and Paragraph 0038: “to allow maintenance and repair of the fuel pump module 21”].
Regarding Claim 6, Fischerkeller teaches a fuel tank but does not teach a fuel tank cover. Kim teaches The fuel tank assembly of Claim 5, wherein the protective fuel tank cover further comprises an access opening cover plate that is removably connectable to the protective fuel tank cover to cover the access opening [Kim Fig. 1, Reference Character 40]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fuel tank assembly of Fischerkeller to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a protective fuel tank cover comprising an access opening and an access opening cover plate in view of Kim. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fischerkeller and Kim because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating maintenance and repair of the fuel pump module after vehicle sale, as recognized by Kim [Kim Paragraph 0036: “the member 40 for covering the cabin bottom plate 10 hole 11 is very useful and commonly called an “A.S.” cover (After-sale Service).” and Paragraph 0038: “to allow maintenance and repair of the fuel pump module 21”].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischerkeller et al. (US 6436287 B1) (hereinafter “Fischerkeller”) in view of Lauer et al. (US 2139370 A) (hereinafter “Lauer”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 8, Fischerkeller teaches a fuel tank assembly but does not teach a fuel drain port. Lauer teaches the fuel tank assembly of Claim 1 further comprising a fuel drain port disposed in and extending through one of: the same wall of the one or more walls as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port; and a different wall of the one or more walls as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port, wherein the fuel drain port is structured and operable to provide controllable drainage of fuel from the fuel tank [Lauer Fig. 1, Reference Character 15; Paragraph 14: “There is also shown in the drawings provision for draining the tank at 15.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fuel tank assembly of Fischerkeller to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a fuel drain port in view of Lauer. It should be noted that while Lauer does not explicitly provide a motivation for including a fuel drain port, fuel drain ports on fuel tanks are common in the art. Fuel drain ports allow evacuation of fuel from the tank to facilitate service, to reduce explosion hazard, and to remove contaminants, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischerkeller et al. (US 6436287 B1) (hereinafter “Fischerkeller”) in view of Kim (CN 101559713 B). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 18, Fischerkeller teaches a fuel tank assembly but does not teach a fuel tank cover. Kim teaches the fuel tank assembly of Claim 15 further comprising a protective fuel tank cover that is structured and operable to be disposed over two or more sides of the fuel tank when the fuel tank is secured to a vehicle [Kim Fig. 1, Reference Character 10]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fuel tank assembly of Fischerkeller to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a protective fuel tank cover in view of Kim. It should be noted that while Kim does not explicitly provide a motivation for including a protective fuel tank cover, protective fuel tank covers are common in the art. Protective fuel tank covers prevent damage to the fuel tank during installation in a vehicle and serve as heat shields to limit heat transfer to the vehicle body, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 19, Fischerkeller teaches a fuel tank but does not teach a fuel tank cover. Kim teaches the fuel tank assembly of Claim 18, wherein the protective fuel tank cover comprises access opening formed within the protective fuel tank cover to provide access to the fuel pump [Kim Fig. 1, Reference Character 11]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fuel tank assembly of Fischerkeller to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a protective fuel tank cover comprising an access opening in view of Kim. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fischerkeller and Kim because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating maintenance and repair of the fuel pump module after vehicle sale, as recognized by Kim [Kim Paragraph 0036: “the member 40 for covering the cabin bottom plate 10 hole 11 is very useful and commonly called an “A.S.” cover (After-sale Service).” and Paragraph 0038: “to allow maintenance and repair of the fuel pump module 21”].
Regarding Claim 20, Fischerkeller teaches a fuel tank but does not teach a fuel tank cover. Kim teaches The fuel tank assembly of Claim 19, wherein the protective fuel tank cover further comprises an access opening cover plate that is removably connectable to the protective fuel tank cover to cover the access opening [Kim Fig. 1, Reference Character 40]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fuel tank assembly of Fischerkeller to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a protective fuel tank cover comprising an access opening and an access opening cover plate in view of Kim. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Fischerkeller and Kim because this would have achieved the desirable result of facilitating maintenance and repair of the fuel pump module after vehicle sale, as recognized by Kim [Kim Paragraph 0036: “the member 40 for covering the cabin bottom plate 10 hole 11 is very useful and commonly called an “A.S.” cover (After-sale Service).” and Paragraph 0038: “to allow maintenance and repair of the fuel pump module 21”].
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischerkeller et al. (US 6436287 B1) (hereinafter “Fischerkeller”) in view of Lauer et al. (US 2139370 A) (hereinafter “Lauer”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 22, Fischerkeller teaches a fuel tank assembly but does not teach a fuel drain port. Lauer teaches the fuel tank assembly of Claim 15 further comprising a fuel drain port disposed in and extending through one of: the same wall of the one or more walls as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port; and a different wall of the one or more walls as at least one of the tank supply port and the fuel return port, wherein the fuel drain port is structured and operable to provide controllable drainage of fuel from the fuel tank [Lauer Fig. 1, Reference Character 15; Paragraph 14: “There is also shown in the drawings provision for draining the tank at 15.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the fuel tank assembly of Fischerkeller to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a fuel drain port in view of Lauer. It should be noted that while Lauer does not explicitly provide a motivation for including a fuel drain port, fuel drain ports on fuel tanks are common in the art. Fuel drain ports allow evacuation of fuel from the tank to facilitate service, to reduce explosion hazard, and to remove contaminants, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are 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. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 2, Fischerkeller et al. (US 6436287 B1) (hereinafter “Fischerkeller”) teaches a fuel tank assembly comprising a pump egress supply conduit but does not teach a tank reentry port.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the fuel tank assembly of Claim 1 further comprising a pump egress supply conduit that is removably connectable at a first end to a pump egress port, and removably connectable at a second end to a tank reentry port such that the pump egress supply conduit is disposed exteriorly to the fuel tank and is fluidly connected to the fuel pump. The closest reference, Fischerkeller, teaches a pump egress supply conduit that is removably connectable at a first end to a pump egress port [Fischerkeller Fig. 1, Reference Character 94], but does not teach the conduit being removably connectable at a second end to a tank reentry port such that the pump egress supply conduit is disposed exteriorly to the fuel tank and is fluidly connected to the fuel pump.
Claims 16 and 17 are 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. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 16, Fischerkeller et al. (US 6436287 B1) (hereinafter “Fischerkeller”) teaches a fuel tank assembly comprising a pump egress supply conduit but does not teach a tank reentry port.
The prior art does not teach or suggest the fuel tank assembly of Claim 15, wherein the fuel tank assembly further comprises a pump egress supply conduit that is removably connectable at a first end to a pump egress port, and removably connectable at a second end to a tank reentry port such that the pump egress supply conduit is disposed exteriorly to the fuel tank and is fluidly connected to the fuel pump. The closest reference, Fischerkeller, teaches a pump egress supply conduit that is removably connectable at a first end to a pump egress port [Fischerkeller Fig. 1, Reference Character 94], but does not teach the conduit being removably connectable at a second end to a tank reentry port such that the pump egress supply conduit is disposed exteriorly to the fuel tank and is fluidly connected to the fuel pump.
Claims 9-14 are allowed. The following is the examiner’s statement of reason for allowance: The prior art does not teach or suggest all elements of Claim 9; Claims 10-14 are dependent on Claim 9. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, Fischerkeller teaches a fuel tank assembly comprising: a fuel tank having at least one wall; a fuel pump disposed within an interior space of the fuel tank; a tank supply port disposed in and extending through a wall of the one or more walls, the tank supply port fluidly connected to the fuel pump [Fischerkeller Fig. 1, Reference Characters 14 (fuel tank); 18, 22, and 26 (walls); 10 (fuel pump); and 94 (tank supply port); Fischerkeller Abstract: “A fuel pump module including a fuel reservoir, a fuel pump communicating with the fuel reservoir and having a fuel outlet”]; and an engine supply conduit connectable to the tank supply port such that the engine supply conduit is fluidly connected to the fuel pump [Fischerkeller Paragraph 7: “The flange 82 further includes an outlet port 94 that allows fuel to exit the fuel tank 14 and enter the external portion of the fuel system (not shown).”; Fischerkeller Paragraph 14: “Appropriate connection lines 142 can be connected to the electrical connector 90, the outlet port 94”]; but does not teach a tank reentry port or an interstitial supply conduit.
The prior art does not teach or suggest a pump egress supply conduit that is removably connectable at a first end to a pump egress port, and removably connectable at a second end to a tank reentry port such that the pump egress supply conduit is disposed exteriorly to the fuel tank and is fluidly connected to the fuel pump; and an interstitial supply conduit that is connected at a first end to the reentry port, and connected at a second end to the tank supply port such that the interstitial supply conduit is disposed within the interior space of the fuel tank and is fluidly connected to the fuel pump, thereby fluidly connecting the engine supply conduit to the fuel pump. The closest reference, Fischerkeller, teaches a pump egress supply conduit that is removably connectable at a first end to a pump egress port [Fischerkeller Fig. 1, Reference Character 94], but does not teach the conduit being removably connectable at a second end to a tank reentry port such that the pump egress supply conduit is disposed exteriorly to the fuel tank and is fluidly connected to the fuel pump; and an interstitial supply conduit that is connected at a first end to the reentry port, and connected at a second end to the tank supply port such that the interstitial supply conduit is disposed within the interior space of the fuel tank and is fluidly connected to the fuel pump, thereby fluidly connecting the engine supply conduit to the fuel pump.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights