DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
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 1-3, 5-7, 13-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabry et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0014558 A1 (hereafter Sabry).
As to claim 1: Sabry teaches a vehicle cabin gas sensing system (see figs. 9A and 9B and ¶ 92) comprising:
a tube (910; see fig. 9B) comprising a first end (the left end of the tube 910 in fig. 9B) and a second end (the right end of the tube 910 in fig. 9B) and the second end disposed within a vehicle cabin (see fig. 9A and ¶ 92);
a gas analysis chamber (not labeled but see ¶ 92 regarding the gas analyzer 902 which necessarily has a component for storing gas that is considered to be a gas analysis chamber therein).
The embodiment of Sabry disclosed thus far does not explicitly teach:
the first end coupled to a valve; and
wherein the valve is coupled to the gas analysis chamber.
However, another embodiment of Sabry (see fig. 7) teaches:
a first end of a tube (the left side of the tube depicted in fig. 7) being coupled to a valve (708); and
wherein the valve is coupled to a gas analysis chamber (704; see fig. 7 and ¶ 90).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Sabry depicted in fig. 9 such that the first end of the tube is coupled to a valve and wherein the valve is coupled to a gas analysis chamber because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of monitoring gas for both gas properties and leak information, such as suggested in ¶ 90.
The embodiment of Sabry depicted in fig. 9 also does not explicitly teach:
a pump coupled to the gas analysis chamber and configured to move gas through the tube, the valve, and the gas analysis chamber.
However, another embodiment (see fig. 6B) of Sabry teaches a pump (620; see ¶ 89) coupled to a gas analysis chamber (614; see ¶ 89) and configured to move gas (see ¶ 89 as well as previous details in ¶ 56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Sabry in fig. 9 by including a pump coupled to the gas analysis chamber and configured to move gas through the tube, the valve, and the gas analysis chamber because such a modification is an art recognized means of monitoring air inside a vehicle which can provide the useful and predictable result of determining gas concentrations therein, such as suggested in ¶ 56 of Sabry. Additionally, such concentrations are of particular importance with regard to undesired substances such as also suggested in ¶ 55 and thus the use of a pump can provide a means to ensure a detection of any such substances while also maintaining pressure of air in the system as also suggested in ¶ 56.
The embodiment of Sabry depicted in fig. 9 also does not explicitly teach:
a controller comprising a processor and a memory;
wherein the processor executes instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the processor to start the pump, open the valve, and analyze the gas moved by the pump using the gas analysis sensor.
However, another embodiment of Sabry (see fig. 3) teaches a controller (316; see ¶ 69) comprising a processor and a memory (see ¶ 69);
wherein the processor executes instructions stored in the memory (see ¶ 69), the instructions causing the processor to carry out various functions (see ¶ 80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the embodiment of Sabry depicted in fig. 9 by including a controller comprising a processor and a memory; wherein the processor executes instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the processor to start the pump, open the valve, and analyze the gas moved by the pump using the gas analysis sensor because such control of a gas analysis allows for both user input controlled functions to be specified and carried out when so desired or measurements to be taken in an automated manner, such as suggested in ¶ 80, and thus improves the flexibility of Sabry’s device by allowing for both manual and automated gas sensing operations depending upon the user’s desired operational mode.
As to claim 2: Sabry teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 1, wherein the second end of the tube (the right end of the tube 910 in fig. 9B) is disposed on or within a vehicle seat (see ¶ 92).
As to claim 3: Sabry teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 1, wherein the second end of the tube (the right end of the tube 910 in fig. 9B) is disposed adjacent a seatbelt shoulder anchor (see ¶ 92; the gas analyzer may be mounted under a seat as disclosed and is therefore considered to be adjacent a seatbelt shoulder anchor of the seatbelt mounted therein).
As to claim 5: Sabry teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 1, wherein the second end of the tube (the right end of the tube 910 in fig. 9B) is disposed adjacent a floor of the vehicle cabin (see ¶ 92; when mounted under the seat, the gas analyzer and second end of the tube are considered to be adjacent a floor of the vehicle cabin).
As to claim 6: Sabry teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 1, further comprising one or more environmental sensors (see ¶ 55 in view of further details in ¶ 92).
As to claim 7: Sabry teaches the vehicle gas sensing system of claim 6, wherein the one or more environmental sensors may be chosen from temperature sensors, humidity sensors, pressure/force sensors, vibration sensors, acceleration sensors, or combinations thereof (see ¶ 81).
As to claim 13: Sabry teaches a vehicle cabin gas sensing system (see figs. 9A and 9B and ¶ 92) comprising:
a plurality of tubes (see the main flow path of the system depicted in fig. 9B as well as the branch paths connected thereto) each comprising a first end and a second end (the main flow path has a left end and right end depicted in fig. 9B and the branch path pipe portions have portions connected to the main flow path and/or each other), each of the second ends disposed within a vehicle cabin (see fig. 9A and ¶ 92); and
a gas analysis chamber (not labeled but see ¶ 92 regarding the gas analyzer 902 which necessarily has a component for storing gas that is considered to be a gas analysis chamber therein) comprising a gas analysis sensor (not labeled but see ¶ 92; gas analyzer 902 is considered to necessarily have hardware considered to be a gas analysis sensor in order to carry out the disclosed gas sensing functions).
The embodiment of Sabry disclosed thus far does not explicitly teach:
each of the first ends coupled to a valve, the valve capable of being opened or closed with respect to each of the plurality of tubes; and
wherein the valve is coupled to the gas analysis chamber.
However, another embodiment of Sabry (see fig. 7) teaches:
a first end of a tube (the left side of the tube depicted in fig. 7) being coupled to a valve (708), the valve capable of being opened or closed with respect to a tube (see ¶ 90); and
wherein the valve is coupled to a gas analysis chamber (704; see fig. 7 and ¶ 90).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Sabry depicted in fig. 9 such that each of the first end of the tubes is coupled to a valve, the valve capable of being opened or closed with respect to each of the plurality of tubes, and wherein the valve is coupled to a gas analysis chamber because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of monitoring gas for both gas properties and leak information, such as suggested in ¶ 90.
The embodiment of Sabry depicted in fig. 9 also does not explicitly teach:
a pump coupled to the gas analysis chamber and configured to move gas through the plurality of tubes, the valve, and the gas analysis chamber.
However, another embodiment (see fig. 6B) of Sabry teaches a pump (620; see ¶ 89) coupled to a gas analysis chamber (614; see ¶ 89) and configured to move gas (see ¶ 89 as well as previous details in ¶ 56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the embodiment of Sabry in fig. 9 by including a pump coupled to the gas analysis chamber and configured to move gas through the plurality of tubes, the valve, and the gas analysis chamber because such a modification is an art recognized means of monitoring air inside a vehicle which can provide the useful and predictable result of determining gas concentrations therein, such as suggested in ¶ 56 of Sabry. Additionally, such concentrations are of particular importance with regard to undesired substances such as also suggested in ¶ 55 and thus the use of a pump can provide a means to ensure a detection of any such substances while also maintaining pressure of air in the system as also suggested in ¶ 56.
The embodiment of Sabry depicted in fig. 9 also does not explicitly teach:
a controller comprising a processor and a memory;
wherein the processor executes instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the processor to start the pump, open the valve with respect to one of the plurality of tubes and close the valve with respect to each of the remaining tubes of the plurality of tubes, and analyze the gas moved by the pump using the gas analysis sensor.
However, another embodiment of Sabry (see fig. 3) teaches a controller (316; see ¶ 69) comprising a processor and a memory (see ¶ 69);
wherein the processor executes instructions stored in the memory (see ¶ 69), the instructions causing the processor to carry out various functions (see ¶ 80).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the embodiment of Sabry depicted in fig. 9 by including a controller comprising a processor and a memory; wherein the processor executes instructions stored in the memory, the instructions causing the processor to start the pump, open the valve with respect to one of the plurality of tubes and close the valve with respect to each of the remaining tubes of the plurality of tubes, and analyze the gas moved by the pump using the gas analysis sensor because such control of a gas analysis allows for both user input controlled functions to be specified and carried out when so desired or measurements to be taken in an automated manner, such as suggested in ¶ 80, and thus improves the flexibility of Sabry’s device by allowing for both manual and automated gas sensing operations depending upon the user’s desired operational mode.
As to claim 14: Sabry teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 13, wherein at least one of the second ends of the plurality of tubes (the right end of the tube 910 in fig. 9B or the right end of the branch tube connected thereto) is disposed on or within a vehicle seat (see ¶ 92).
As to claim 15: Sabry teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 13, wherein at least one of the second ends of the plurality of tubes (the right end of the tube 910 in fig. 9B or the right end of the branch tube connected thereto) is disposed adjacent a seatbelt shoulder anchor (see ¶ 92; the gas analyzer may be mounted under a seat as disclosed and is therefore considered to be adjacent a seatbelt shoulder anchor of the seatbelt mounted therein).
As to claim 17: Sabry teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 13, wherein at least one of the second ends of the plurality of tubes (the right end of the tube 910 in fig. 9B or the right end of the branch tube connected thereto) is disposed adjacent a floor of the vehicle cabin (see ¶ 92; when mounted under the seat, the gas analyzer and second end of the tube are considered to be adjacent a floor of the vehicle cabin).
As to claim 18: Sabry teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 13, further comprising one or more environmental sensors disposed within the vehicle cabin (see ¶ 55 in view of further details in ¶ 92).
As to claim 19: Sabry teaches the vehicle gas sensing system of claim 18, wherein the one or more environmental sensors may be chosen from temperature sensors, humidity sensors, pressure/force sensors, vibration sensors, acceleration sensors, or combinations thereof (see ¶ 81).
Claims 8, 9, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabry et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0014558 A1 (hereafter Sabry) as applied above, and further in view of Bonda US PG-PUB 2021/0190735 A1 (hereafter Bonda).
As to claim 8: Sabry teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a tube (910; see fig. 9B), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the tube is closable by a one-way check valve disposed within the tube.
However, Bonda teaches that a tube may be closable by a one-way check valve (13; see ¶ 35) disposed within the tube (see ¶ 35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sabry’s tube such that it is closable by a one-way check valve disposed within the tube because such a one-way check valve is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of preventing intrusion of air or extraneous gasses into a particular portion of a gas analysis system, such as suggested in ¶ 35 of Bonda, and accordingly could be used to prevent gases that could be undesirable from entering the cabin of a vehicle which could be unpleasant for occupants or could pose a safety risk if allowed to enter unimpeded.
As to claim 9: Sabry as modified by Bonda teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 8, wherein the one-way check valve (13 of Bonda) is passively operated by pressure (see ¶ 35 of Bonda).
As to claim 20: Sabry teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a plurality of tubes (see the main flow path of the system depicted in fig. 9B as well as the branch paths connected thereto), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the tube is closable by a one-way check valve disposed within the tube.
However, Bonda teaches that tubes may be closable by a one-way check valve (13; see ¶ 35) disposed within the tube (see ¶ 35).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sabry’s tubes such that they are closable by a one-way check valve disposed within the tube because such a one-way check valve is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of preventing intrusion of air or extraneous gasses into a particular portion of a gas analysis system, such as suggested in ¶ 35 of Bonda, and accordingly could be used to prevent gases that could be undesirable from entering the cabin of a vehicle which could be unpleasant for occupants or could pose a safety risk if allowed to enter unimpeded.
As to claim 21: Sabry as modified by Bonda teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 20, wherein the each of the one-way check valves (13 of Bonda) is passively operated by pressure (see ¶ 35 of Bonda).
Claims 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabry et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0014558 A1 (hereafter Sabry) as applied above, and further in view of Bining et al. US PG-PUB 2020/0215478 A1 (hereafter Bining).
As to claim 10: Sabry teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, including a valve (708), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein opening the valve comprises the instructions causing the valve to activate a solenoid.
However, Bining teaches that the opening of a valve may comprise instructions that cause the valve to activate a solenoid (see ¶ 65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sabry’s valve such that opening the valve comprises the instructions causing the valve to activate a solenoid because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of allowing a controller to automatically allow a supply of gas enter a space or to be discharged therefrom such as suggested in ¶ 52 and 55 of Bining, respectively, and thus would allow for the selective testing of only a specific portion of an input gas for analysis at a certain time which would also assist in maintaining proper pressure and ensuring enough of the gas therein is present in order to make accurate measurements.
As to claim 22: Sabry teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 13, including a valve (708), but does not explicitly teach:
wherein opening the valve with respect to one of the plurality of tubes and closing the valve with respect to each of the remaining tubes of the plurality of tubes comprises the instructions causing the valve to activate a plurality of solenoids.
However, Bining teaches that the opening of a valve may comprise instructions that cause the valve to activate a solenoid (see ¶ 65).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sabry’s device such that opening the valve with respect to one of the plurality of tubes and closing the valve with respect to each of the remaining tubes of the plurality of tubes comprises the instructions causing the valve to activate a plurality of solenoids because such a construction is an art recognized means of achieving the useful and predictable result of allowing a controller to automatically allow a supply of gas enter a space or to be discharged therefrom such as suggested in ¶ 52 and 55 of Bining, respectively, and thus would allow for the selective testing of only a specific portion of an input gas for analysis at a certain time which would also assist in maintaining proper pressure and ensuring enough of the gas therein is present in order to make accurate measurements while also ensuring gas only utilizes a specified path when so desired by an operator.
Claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabry et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0014558 A1 (hereafter Sabry) as applied above, and further in view of Kim et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0087167 A1 (hereafter Kim).
As to claim 11: Sabry teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
the vehicle cabin gas sensing system further comprising a reservoir containing a neutralizing agent.
However, Kim teaches a gas sensing system (see fig. 3) comprising a reservoir containing a neutralizing agent (not labeled but see ¶ 78; the source of the disclosed neutralizing agent is considered to be a reservoir).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sabry to include a reservoir containing a neutralizing agent because such an agent because such a neutralizing agent can provide the useful and predictable result of counteracting and neutralizing potentially offensive gases, such as suggested in ¶ 80 of Kim, and therefore could serve to improve the interior cabin condition when applied to Sabry’s device.
As to claim 12: Sabry as modified by Kim teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 11, wherein the reservoir (not labeled but see ¶ 78 of Kim; the source of the disclose neutralizing agent is considered to be a reservoir) comprises a reservoir pump (not labeled but see ¶ 78 of Kim regarding the disclosed pump that pumps the disclosed neutralizing agent), wherein the processor executes instructions stored on the memory to cause the reservoir pump to pump the neutralizing agent into the vehicle cabin (see ¶ 78 of Kim in view of ¶ 69 of Sabry).
As to claim 23: Sabry teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 13, but does not explicitly teach:
the vehicle cabin gas sensing system further comprising a reservoir containing a neutralizing agent.
However, Kim teaches a gas sensing system (see fig. 3) comprising a reservoir containing a neutralizing agent (not labeled but see ¶ 78; the source of the disclosed neutralizing agent is considered to be a reservoir).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sabry to include a reservoir containing a neutralizing agent because such an agent because such a neutralizing agent can provide the useful and predictable result of counteracting and neutralizing potentially offensive gases, such as suggested in ¶ 80 of Kim, and therefore could serve to improve the interior cabin condition when applied to Sabry’s device.
As to claim 24: Sabry as modified by Kim teaches the vehicle cabin gas sensing system of claim 23, wherein the reservoir (not labeled but see ¶ 78 of Kim; the source of the disclose neutralizing agent is considered to be a reservoir) comprises a reservoir pump (not labeled but see ¶ 78 of Kim regarding the disclosed pump that pumps the disclosed neutralizing agent), wherein the processor executes instructions stored on the memory to cause the reservoir pump to pump the neutralizing agent into the vehicle cabin (see ¶ 78 of Kim in view of ¶ 69 of Sabry).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabry et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0014558 A1 (hereafter Sabry) as applied above, and further in view of Apell et al. US PG-PUB 2023/0266300 A1 (hereafter Apell).
As to claim 25: Sabry teaches all of the limitations of the claimed invention as described above regarding claim 13, including a controller (316; see ¶ 69), a valve (708), and a plurality of tubes (see the main flow path of the system depicted in fig. 9B as well as the branch paths connected thereto), but does not explicitly teach:
further comprising a camera-based occupant monitoring system, wherein the controller uses an output from the camera-based occupant monitoring system to open the valve with respect one of the plurality of tubes and close the valve with respect to each of the remaining tubes of the plurality of tubes.
However, Apell teaches a camera-based occupant monitoring system (see ¶ 32 and 53), wherein a controller uses an output from the camera-based occupant monitoring system to open a valve with respect one of a plurality of tubes and close the valve with respect to each of the remaining tubes of the plurality of tubes (see ¶ 53 and 56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sabry such that it includes a camera-based occupant monitoring system, wherein the controller uses an output from the camera-based occupant monitoring system to open the valve with respect one of the plurality of tubes and close the valve with respect to each of the remaining tubes of the plurality of tubes because such a construction can be used to ensure a dangerous gas in an occupied vehicle does not exceed a certain threshold, such as suggested in ¶ 53 of Apell, and thus can improve the safety of Sabry’s device by preventing said build up of dangerous gases.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 16, and 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 4: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a vehicle gas sensing system wherein the second end of the tube is disposed within (emphasis added) a seatbelt gas sensing assembly, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 1.
In particular, while Sabry is considered to teach a second end of a tube being disposed adjacent to a seatbelt shoulder anchor, such as disclosed in ¶ 92, there is no disclosure or suggestion available therein or in any of the other relevant prior art that would render obvious to the skilled artisan the second end of the tube being disposed within (emphasis added) a seatbelt gas sensing assembly. Although it is known from the prior art (see, for example Isayama et al. US PG-PUB 2015/0191149 A1 ¶ 32) to have gas generating components disposed near a seatbelt device, there does not appear to be a reason, teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify Sabry in light of the cited prior art of record such that the second end of the tube is disposed within (emphasis added) a seatbelt gas sensing assembly such as required by the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth in claim 4.
As to claim 16: The claim depends from claim 13 but recites limitations largely similar to claim 4 and accordingly is also 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 for reasons similar thereto but not repeated herein for brevity.
As to claim 26: The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan a vehicle cabin gas sensing system comprising a seat-based occupant classification system, wherein the controller uses an output from the seat-based occupant classification system to open the valve with respect to one of the plurality of tubes and close the valve with respect to each of the remaining tubes of the plurality of tubes, when considered in combination with the limitations of parent claim 13.
In particular, while Sabry is considered to teach all of the limitations of claim 13 and it is known from the prior art to utilize a seat-based occupant classification system (see, for example, Maguire et al. US PG-PUB 2018/0022233 A1 ¶ 45 regarding the occupant classification and detection system 16), there does not appear to be any reason, motivation, teaching, or suggestion of modifying Sabry in light of Maguire (nor any of the other cited prior art of record) such that the vehicle cabin gas sensing system comprises a seat-based occupant classification system, wherein the controller uses an output from the seat-based occupant classification system to open the valve with respect to one of the plurality of tubes and close the valve with respect to each of the remaining tubes of the plurality of tubes, all of which are required by the limitations of claim 26.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights