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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. Claims 19-20 are new. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 05/11/2026. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 03/16/2026 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Drawings
The drawing objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 02/10/2026 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims filed on 05/11/2026
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-11, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soltani et al., hereinafter 'Soltani' (US 6012186 A).
In regards to Claim 1, Soltani teaches: A pneumatic adjustment module (10 - Fig. 1) configured to attach to a support panel (shown in Fig. 5 to be attached to support panel [30, 32, 40, 44] - Fig. 1) of an adjustable bed (11 - Fig. 1), the support panel being movable between an unarticulated position (Fig. 3) and an articulated position (Fig. 4) rotated upward relative to the unarticulated position to raise an overlying mattress (Fig. 4 shows rotation of support panel [30, 32, 40, 44] relative to overlying mattress 12), and the pneumatic adjustment module comprising: a base (26 - Fig. 5) configured to be received on the support panel of the adjustable bed; a tilt panel attached to the base (32- Fig. 5) with a vertex hinge (280 - Fig. 10, Col 12 Lines 50-54); a bladder positioned between the base and tilt panel ([68, 70] - Fig. 5), the bladder pneumatically expandable from a deflated condition (Fig. 3 shows deflated configuration) to an inflated condition (Fig. 4 shows inflated configuration), wherein when the bladder is in the deflated condition, the tilt panel is substantially parallel to the base (Fig. 3 shows tilt panel substantially parallel to base), and wherein when the bladder is in the inflated condition, the bladder has an effectively triangular cross section (Fig. 4 shows bladder in a triangular cross section from the side angle, see annotated Fig. 4.1 from Soltani) having a vertex proximate the vertex hinge (52 - Fig. 4, see annotated Fig. 4.1 from Soltani) and the tilt panel has a tilt angle with respect to the base (see annotated Fig. 4.1 from Soltani).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4.1 from Soltani
In regards to Claim 2, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 1, wherein the bladder comprises multiple expansion segments (Col 6 Line 45 - Col 7 Line 15).
In regards to Claim 3, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 2, wherein each one of the multiple expansion segments includes lobes interconnected for inflation of the one expansion segment (72/74 of expansion segment 70 - Fig. 5 | AND | 72/74 of expansion segment 68 - Fig. 5).
In regards to Claim 9, Soltani teaches: A pneumatic adjustment module (10 - Fig. 1) configured to attach to a support panel (shown in Fig. 5 to be attached to support panel [30, 32, 40, 44] - Fig. 1) of an adjustable bed (11 - Fig. 1), the support panel being movable between an unarticulated position (Fig. 3) and an articulated position (Fig. 4) rotated upward relative to the unarticulated position to raise an overlying mattress (Fig. 4 shows rotation of support panel [30, 32, 40, 44] relative to overlying mattress 12), and the pneumatic adjustment module comprising: a base (26 - Fig. 5) configured to be received on the support panel of the adjustable bed; a tilt panel (32- Fig. 5) having a rectangular planar structure (rectangular structure of 32 shown in Fig. 5) that defines an upper edge and a lower edge at opposing sides of the rectangular planar structure (54 is upper edge / 52 is lower edge - Fig. 5), the lower edge of the tilt panel attached along a corresponding portion of the base with a vertex hinge (280 - Fig. 10, Col 12 Lines 50-54); and a bladder positioned between the base and the tilt panel ([68, 70] - Fig. 5), the bladder having a plurality of separate expansion segments overlapping between the base and the tilt panel (Col 6 Line 45 - Col 7 Line 15), wherein the bladder is pneumatically expandable from a deflated condition with the tilt panel substantially parallel to the base (Fig. 3 shows deflated configuration) in an inflated condition with the tilt panel positioned at a tilt angle with respect to the base (Fig. 4 shows inflated configuration).
In regards to Claim 10, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 9, wherein with the bladder in the inflated condition, the bladder has a triangular cross section (Fig. 4 shows bladder in a triangular cross section from the side angle, see annotated Fig. 4.1 from Soltani).
In regards to Claim 11, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 9, wherein with the bladder in the inflated condition, the bladder has a vertex proximate and is spaced from the vertex hinge (52 - Fig. 4, see annotated Fig. 4.1 from Soltani).
In regards to Claim 13, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 9, wherein each one of the plurality of expansion segments includes lobes interconnected for inflation of the one expansion segment (72/74 of expansion segment 70 - Fig. 5 | AND | 72/74 of expansion segment 68 - Fig. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Soltani' (US 6012186 A) in view of Wittekind et al., hereinafter 'Wittekind' (US 20190307257 A1).
In regards to Claim 4, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 3, but Soltani does not explicitly teach, wherein the lobes of each one of the multiple expansion segments are interconnected by molded or bonded seams.
Wittekind teaches: wherein the lobes of each one of the multiple expansion segments are interconnected by molded or bonded seams (Para 0041: "For example, a roller heat sealer can be used to heat seal the seams of the inflatable bladder 708. In another embodiment, an ultrasonic sealer could also be used to seal the seams. Alternatively, other manufacturing techniques can be used to construct the inflatable bladder 708.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Soltani to include molded or bonded seams interconnecting the lobes of the multiple expansion segments as taught by Wittekind, as such seams represent a known manufacturing technique for forming inflatable structures and would have predictably improved structural integrity and manufacturability of the pneumatic adjustment module.
In regards to Claim 14, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 13, but Soltani does not explicitly teach, wherein the lobes of each one of the multiple expansion segments are interconnected by molded or bonded seams.
Wittekind teaches: wherein the lobes of each one of the multiple expansion segments are interconnected by molded or bonded seams (Para 0041: "For example, a roller heat sealer can be used to heat seal the seams of the inflatable bladder 708. In another embodiment, an ultrasonic sealer could also be used to seal the seams. Alternatively, other manufacturing techniques can be used to construct the inflatable bladder 708.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Soltani to include molded or bonded seams interconnecting the lobes of the multiple expansion segments as taught by Wittekind, as such seams represent a known manufacturing technique for forming inflatable structures and would have predictably improved structural integrity and manufacturability of the pneumatic adjustment module.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Soltani' (US 6012186 A) in view of Mcintyre (US 20150282630 A1).
In regards to Claim 5, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 1, wherein the tilt angle has a range from substantially 0° with the bladder in the deflated condition (Fig. 3 of Soltani), but Soltani does not explicitly teach, to a maximum angle, between 20° and 30° with the bladder in the inflated condition.
Mcintyre teaches: to a maximum angle, between 20° and 30° with the bladder in the inflated condition (Para 0031: " In other examples, inflatable bladder 122 of lower extremity section 120 may form an angle of approximately thirty-five degrees relative to the bottom surface of lower extremity section 120 when fully inflated to, for example, raise a users feet above their heart.", noting that approximately is not defined by Mcintyre and can imply that precision isn't critical to function such that 35 degrees would likely be considered "approximately 30". Furthermore, if the bladder was less than fully inflated it would be within the broad claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Soltani to provide a maximum tilt angle between 20° and 30° as taught by McIntyre, since McIntyre demonstrates that such angular ranges are suitable for inflatable support systems and represent a result effective variable achievable through routine optimization of inflation levels.
In regards to Claim 15, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 9, wherein the tilt angle has a range from substantially 0° with the bladder in the deflated condition to a maximum angle (Fig. 3 of Soltani), but Soltani does not explicitly teach, to a maximum angle, between 20° and 30° with the bladder in the inflated condition.
Mcintyre teaches: to a maximum angle, between 20° and 30° with the bladder in the inflated condition (Para 0031: " In other examples, inflatable bladder 122 of lower extremity section 120 may form an angle of approximately thirty-five degrees relative to the bottom surface of lower extremity section 120 when fully inflated to, for example, raise a users feet above their heart.", noting that approximately is not defined by Mcintyre and can imply that precision isn't critical to function such that 35 degrees would likely be considered "approximately 30". Furthermore, if the bladder was less than fully inflated it would be within the broad claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Soltani to provide a maximum tilt angle between 20° and 30° as taught by McIntyre, since McIntyre demonstrates that such angular ranges are suitable for inflatable support systems and represent a result effective variable achievable through routine optimization of inflation levels.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 'Soltani' (US 6012186 A) in view of Krueger et al., hereinafter 'Krueger' (KR 20160119063 A).
In regards to Claim 6, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 1, Soltani does not explicitly teach, wherein the tilt panel is flexible to allow contouring between the pneumatic adjustment module and the overlying mattress
Krueger teaches: wherein the tilt panel is flexible to allow contouring between the pneumatic adjustment module and the overlying mattress ("Referring to the drawings, FIG. 1A illustrates an exemplary adjustable bed system 10 that includes a flexible support member 12 to support a mattress. The flexible support of the exemplary embodiment is fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) of 1/8 inch sheet which is a flame retardant (FR). The side frame members 14 are constructed such that the flexible members 12 are provided with cross members 16 fixed with bolts extending through the FRP using a flat plate or disc 18 (best viewed in Figure 3) . The rotatable upper body support arm 20 supports the upper body portion 13 of the flexible supporting member 12 toward the upper end of the bed. The flexible support member 12 is supported lubriciously on the support arm 20 to place itself in a new position during movement of the support arm. In one exemplary embodiment, the shuttle 22 supported on the support arm 20 is attached to the flexible support member 12. The leg adjustable member 24 is positioned to contact the flexible support member at approximately the user's knee position 25 between the thighs 15 and the lower legs 19 of the flexible support member 12 . The side frame may include an insert that receives the rim of the flexible support member 12 in a flat condition." and further noting "Referring to the drawings, FIG. 1A illustrates an exemplary adjustable bed system 10 that includes a flexible support member 12 to support a mattress.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Soltani such that the tilt panel is flexible to allow contouring between the pneumatic adjustment module and the overlying mattress, as taught by Krueger, in order to improve conformity, comfort, and compatibility with mattresses, which are recognized design considerations in adjustable bed systems.
In regards to Claim 7, Soltani in view of Krueger teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 6, Krueger further teaches, wherein the tilt panel, the base, and the vertex hinge are formed of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) ("The flexible support of the exemplary embodiment is fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) of 1/8 inch sheet which is a flame retardant (FR). The side frame members 14 are constructed such that the flexible members 12 are provided with cross members 16 fixed with bolts extending through the FRP using a flat plate or disc 18 (best viewed in Figure 3)").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the tilt panel, base, and vertex hinge of Soltani from fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) as taught by Krueger, since FRP is a known material choice for flexible yet durable support structures and its use would have yielded predictable results.
In regards to Claim 8, Soltani in view of Krueger teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 6, Soltani further teaches, wherein the vertex hinge is a living hinge joining the tilt panel to the base (Col 12 Lines 50-54).
In regards to Claim 16, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 9, Soltani does not explicitly teach, wherein the tilt panel is flexible to allow contouring between the pneumatic adjustment module and the overlying mattress.
Krueger teaches: wherein the tilt panel is flexible to allow contouring between the pneumatic adjustment module and the overlying mattress ("Referring to the drawings, FIG. 1A illustrates an exemplary adjustable bed system 10 that includes a flexible support member 12 to support a mattress. The flexible support of the exemplary embodiment is fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) of 1/8 inch sheet which is a flame retardant (FR). The side frame members 14 are constructed such that the flexible members 12 are provided with cross members 16 fixed with bolts extending through the FRP using a flat plate or disc 18 (best viewed in Figure 3) . The rotatable upper body support arm 20 supports the upper body portion 13 of the flexible supporting member 12 toward the upper end of the bed. The flexible support member 12 is supported lubriciously on the support arm 20 to place itself in a new position during movement of the support arm. In one exemplary embodiment, the shuttle 22 supported on the support arm 20 is attached to the flexible support member 12. The leg adjustable member 24 is positioned to contact the flexible support member at approximately the user's knee position 25 between the thighs 15 and the lower legs 19 of the flexible support member 12 . The side frame may include an insert that receives the rim of the flexible support member 12 in a flat condition." and further noting "Referring to the drawings, FIG. 1A illustrates an exemplary adjustable bed system 10 that includes a flexible support member 12 to support a mattress.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Soltani such that the tilt panel is flexible to allow contouring between the pneumatic adjustment module and the overlying mattress, as taught by Krueger, in order to improve conformity, comfort, and compatibility with mattresses, which are recognized design considerations in adjustable bed systems.
In regards to Claim 17, Soltani in view of Krueger teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 16, Krueger further teaches, wherein the tilt panel, the base, and the vertex hinge are formed of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) ("The flexible support of the exemplary embodiment is fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP) of 1/8 inch sheet which is a flame retardant (FR). The side frame members 14 are constructed such that the flexible members 12 are provided with cross members 16 fixed with bolts extending through the FRP using a flat plate or disc 18 (best viewed in Figure 3)").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the tilt panel, base, and vertex hinge of Soltani from fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) as taught by Krueger, since FRP is a known material choice for flexible yet durable support structures and its use would have yielded predictable results.
In regards to Claim 18, Soltani in view of Krueger teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 16, Soltani further teaches, wherein the vertex hinge is a living hinge joining the tilt panel to the base (Col 12 Lines 50-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12 and 19-20 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:
In regards to Claim 12, Soltani teaches the pneumatic adjustment module, yet fails to teach, disclose or render obvious wherein the base includes corresponding upper and lower edges that substantially align with the upper and lower edges of the tilt panel in the deflated condition, the upper and lower edges configured to extend laterally relative to the adjustable bed. Specifically noting that the base structure of Soltani does not include upper and lower edges that align with the edges of the tilt panel rather the edges would be of a top and bottom side. And would extend parallel to the adjustable bed. Therefore, a modification of such structure would misalign the respective panels and would not be modifiable in view of a secondary reference.
In regards to Claim 19, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 1, wherein when the support panel is in the articulated position and the bladder is in the inflated condition (Fig. 4 shows articulated position with bladder [68, 70] inflated), the support panel is tilted upward relative to a frame of the adjustable bed (22 – Fig. 1). However, as a result of the amendments filed on May 11, 2026, the tilt panel cannot independently tilt further upward at the designated tilt angle relative to the support panel. Because the support panel constitutes an overarching component that comprises one section of the tilt panel, their functions are inherently interconnected and cannot be separated to achieve the claimed operation. As such, their mechanical functions are inherently interdependent. Consequently, these elements cannot operate independently to achieve the claimed function and would not reasonably be combinable with another reference to achieve such function.
In regards to Claim 20, Soltani teaches: The pneumatic adjustment module of claim 1, wherein when the support panel is in the articulated position and the bladder is in the inflated condition (Fig. 4 shows articulated position with bladder [68, 70] inflated), the support panel is tilted upward relative to a frame of the adjustable bed (22 – Fig. 1). However, as a result of the amendments filed on May 11, 2026, the tilt panel cannot independently tilt further upward at the designated tilt angle relative to the support panel. Because the support panel constitutes an overarching component that comprises one section of the tilt panel, their functions are inherently interconnected and cannot be separated to achieve the claimed operation. As such, their mechanical functions are inherently interdependent. Consequently, these elements cannot operate independently to achieve the claimed function and would not reasonably be combinable with another reference to achieve such function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
Argument #1: “independent Claims 1 and 9 to specify that the "support panel" of the "adjustable bed" is "movable between an unarticulated position and an articulated position rotated upward relative to the unarticulated position to raise an overlying mattress." Thus, independent Claims 1 and 9 each require BOTH a "support panel" that is "rotated upward" and a "tilt panel" having a "tilt angle" relative to a "base configured to be received on the support panel." While Soltani was cited for teaching a "top plate" (analogized to the claimed "tilt panel") that is pivotable relative to a "platform 26" (analogized to the claimed "base"), Soltani does not teach BOTH a "top plate" in combination with another tiltable/rotatable component analogous to the claimed "support panel." Thus, Soltani fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the combination of element recited in independent Claims 1 and 9, and the remaining references fail to cure the deficiencies of Soltani. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of independent Claims 1 and 9 and their associated dependent claims is respectfully requested.”
Argument #2: Applicant has added new Claims 19 and 20, which depend from independent Claims 1 and 9, respectively. Applicant submits that Claims 19 and 20 are allowable at least because of their dependency from Claims 1 and 9 for the reasons stated above, notwithstanding the additional subject matter recited therein. Consideration and allowance of Claims 19 and 20 is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Argument #1 listed above, and shown in the Remarks filed on 05/11/2026. Notably, the Examiner has updated their rejection in the Final Rejection presently filed. Specifically, the following is taught by Soltani (pointing primarily to Figures 3-4 of Soltani showing these features). Wherein the articulated and unarticulated positions can raise the mattress (12), in Figure 4 and 3 respectively. The support panel being of the entire top section supporting the mattress there above, noting the support panel as ([30, 32, 40, 44]) and mattress as (12). The pneumatic adjustment module (10) in Figure 4 includes a base (26) received on support panel, wherein the following is stated in the disclosure of Soltani: “a base platform 26, inflatable bladders or sacks 61, 63 (hereinafter bladders) resting on the base platform 26, and top plates 30, 32 pivotally mounted on the platform 26 and resting on the bladders 61, 63.” (Col 5 Lines 41-46) AND “The first and second block portions 40, 44 of the opposite bottom plates 34, 36 are coupled to form a central raised block portion 46 of the base platform 26 to which the top plates 30, 32 are coupled.” (Col 6 Lines 1-4).
Notably, the limitation ‘received on support panel’ is broadly construed and: (1) does not require the support panel to be positioned beneath or on top of the base; (2) does not mandate a direct physical connection; and (3) allows the base to be in partial or complete contact with the support panel. Under this reasonable interpretation, and consistent with standard dictionary definitions (e.g., Merriam-Webster), the applied prior art demonstrates a base (26) in contact with and received on the support panel at either hinge. Furthermore, this base is connected through to the top surface(s) of the first and second block portions (40, 44), meeting the limitation as properly interpreted.
The Examiner has reviewed Claim(s) 19 and 20 and agrees with the Applicant’s interpretation. The Examiner has noted these claims as allowable subject matter in view of their respective independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ribble et al. (US 20200360205 A1) teaches: A mattress support for a bed includes a base plate and an upper plate assembly. The upper plate assembly includes a head plate having a head end and a foot end. The head end of the head plate is hinged to the base plate by a first hinge. The upper plate assembly also includes a foot plate in tandem with the head plate. The foot plate is hinged to the foot end of the head plate by a second hinge which is parallel to the first hinge. An actuator system between the base plate and the upper plate assembly is operable to adjust the upper plate assembly between a planar configuration and a nonplanar configuration.
Moulton (US 4527298 A) teaches: A pneumatically adjustable bed in which a series of air bladders are strategically placed to adjust the posture of the mattress on a bed so that the occupant of the bed can adjust his posture without having to move. A centrally disposed pneumatic manifold with a motor and a blower is employed to inflate and deflate the various bladders separately, thus posture can be very precisely controlled.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-8473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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 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.
MADISON MATTHEWS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/MADISON MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
06/11/2026
Prosecution Insights