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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 04/30/2025 and 03/24/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the First Office Action on the Merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brisebois (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2005/0124958 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Brisebois teaches A method of forming an absorbent article or feminine hygiene article (see at least para. [0007]), comprising:
providing a topsheet web (see para. [0007 and 0087]);
advancing the topsheet web in a machine direction (see for example Fig. 5B), wherein the topsheet web has a topsheet web width measured in a direction parallel to a cross direction that is perpendicular to the machine direction (see Fig. 5B);
providing a core material (see at least para. [0087]);
the core material onto a first surface of the topsheet web material (see at least para. [0087]);
providing a backsheet web (see at least para. [0007 and 0087]);
advancing the backsheet web in the machine direction (see for example Fig. 5B) and depositing the backsheet web onto the topsheet web such that the first surface of the topsheet web is in a facing relationship with a first surface of the backsheet web (see at least para. [0087]), wherein the backsheet web has a backsheet web width measured in a direction parallel to the cross direction and wherein the topsheet web width is less than the backsheet web width (see Fig. 5B);
applying adhesive between the backsheet web and the topsheet web (para. [0040] teaches that cover layer 56 and barrier layer 58 are sealed together at seal 57, which can be a glue) in a first wing and a second wing (as shown in Fig. 3D, the seal 57 overlaps with the first flap 34 and the second flap 36), wherein the adhesive is deposited in only a portion of each of the first wing and the second wing (as shown in Fig. 3D, seal 57 is located at a portion of each of the first flap 34 and the second flap 36); and
crimping an outer portion of at least one of the first wing and the second wing (see para. [0066]).
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 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavash (U.S. Patent No. 5,578,026 A) in view of Brisebois (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2005/0124958 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lavash teaches A feminine hygiene article (see at least col. 3, lines 60-65) comprising:
a topsheet (see topsheet 40 in Figs. 3a-b);
a backsheet (see backsheet 42 in Figs. 3a-b);
an absorbent core (see absorbent core 44 in Figs. 3a-b) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (see Figs. 3a-b), wherein the absorbent core has a first longitudinal core edge and a second longitudinal core edge (see Figs. 3 and 3a-b); and
a first wing (see one of flaps 24 in Figs. 3a-b) extending laterally outboard the first longitudinal core edge (as shown in Fig. 3, the flaps extend laterally outboard from the longitudinal core edge of the absorbent core 44, shown as broken lines around the perimeter of the absorbent core 44),
wherein the first wing comprises a leading edge portion (as shown in Fig. 3, and as broadly recited, the leading edge portion is the bottom half of the flap 24), a trailing edge portion (as shown in Fig. 3, and as broadly recited, the trailing edge portion is the top half of the flap 24) and an outer most edge portion joining the leading edge portion and the trailing edge portion (see at least Fig. 3),
the first wing has a first wing portion (the first wing portion is considered to be first portion 95 in Figs. 3a-b plus a portion of second portion 96 between first portion 95 and a position outboard from flap adhesive 56) extending from the first longitudinal core edge to a first edge (as shown in Fig. 3a, the first portion 95 extends from the longitudinal core edge of the absorbent core 44 to a first edge at a position outboard from flap adhesive 56) and a second wing portion (in Figs. 3a-b, the second wing portion is considered to be between a position outboard from flap adhesive 56 and distal edge 34) extending from the first edge to an outer most edge portion (as shown in Fig. 3a, the second portion 96 extends from the first at a position outboard from flap adhesive 56 to an outer most edge, such as at numeral 34),
an adhesive in the first wing portion (see flap pleat restraints 66 in Fig. 3b; col. 20, lines 23-26 teach that the flap pleat restraint 66 can be an adhesive), and
mechanical bonding in the second wing portion (see flap pleat restraints 66 in Fig. 3b; col. 20, lines 12-14 teach that flaps 24 can have two flap pleat restraints 66; col. 20, lines 23-26 teach that the flap pleat restraint 66 can be a mechanical bond).
However, Lavash fails to explicitly teach wherein the first wing comprises a first layer and a second layer, as required by the claim.
Brisebois teaches an analogous feminine hygiene article (see at least Abstract) comprising a first wing (see flap 34 in Fig. 3D) that comprises a first layer (see inner layer 46 in Fig. 3D) and a second layer (see outer layer 44 in Fig. 3D).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lavash to incorporate the teachings of Brisebois by making the first wing comprise a first and second layer at least because Brisebois teaches that having an outer layer is advantageously soft and non-irritating to the skin of a wearer, while having an inner layer is preferable for liquid-impervious properties (see para. [0065]). Additionally, in the device of Lavash in view of Brisebois, the first and second layers are joined by the adhesive in the first wing portion and the first and second layers are joined by the mechanical bonding in the second wing portion.
Regarding claim 2, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Lavash teaches comprising a second wing (see flaps 24 in Fig. 3) extending laterally outboard the second longitudinal core edge (as shown in Fig. 3, the flaps extend laterally outboard from the longitudinal core edge of the absorbent core 44, shown as broken lines around the perimeter of the absorbent core 44); wherein the first wing and the second wing are symmetrical about a longitudinal centerline of the feminine hygiene article (see at least Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Lavash teaches wherein an overlap is provided between the adhesive of the first wing portion and the mechanical bonding of the second wing portion (as shown in at least Fig. 3b, flap pleat restraints 66 overlap one another).
Regarding claim 7, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Lavash teaches wherein the first wing has a wearer facing surface and a garment facing surface (see at least Fig. 3a), wherein the garment facing surface comprises a garment fastening adhesive (see flap adhesive 56 in Fig. 3a) and wherein a gap is present between the garment facing adhesive and the second wing portion (the second wing portion is considered to be between a position outboard from flap adhesive 56 and distal edge 34; therefore, as shown in Fig. 3a, a gap exists between flap adhesive 56 and the second wing portion).
Regarding claim 8, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Additionally, Lavash teaches wherein a gap is provided between the outer most edge portion and the garment facing adhesive (as shown in Fig. 3a, a gap exists between flap adhesive 56 and distal edge 34).
Regarding claim 10, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 7. Additionally, Lavash teaches wherein the garment facing adhesive is disposed on the first wing portion (see at least Fig. 3a; the first wing portion is considered to be first portion 95 in Figs. 3a-b plus a portion of second portion 96 between first portion 95 and a position outboard from flap adhesive 56).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Lavash teaches that topsheet 40 may form one surface of flaps 24 and the backsheet 42 may form the other surface of flap 24 (see col. 5, lines 24-27). Therefore, in the device of Lavash in view of Brisebois, the first layer of the first wing is a portion of the topsheet (as applied to claim 11) while the second layer of the first wing is a portion of the backsheet (as applied to claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Lavash in view of Brisebois teaches wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer of the first wing forms the outer most edge portion (see Fig. 3a of Lavash; as shown in Fig. 3D of Brisebois, the first and second layers 44, 46 form the outer most edge portion 70; see also para. [0066] of Brisebois).
Regarding claim 15, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Lavash teaches wherein the mechanical bonding includes at least one of crimping, ultrasonic bonding, pressure bonding, and thermal bonding (see col. 20, lines 24-26).
Regarding claim 16, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Lavash teaches wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer of the first wing is joined to at least one of the topsheet and the backsheet (col. 5, lines 24-27 teach that topsheet 40 may form one surface of flaps 24 and the backsheet 42 may form the other surface of backsheet 42; as shown in Fig. 3a, flaps 24 is a portion of the backsheet 42 and is therefore joined to the backsheet 42).
Regarding claim 17, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Lavash teaches wherein the adhesive extends from the leading edge portion to the trailing edge portion (as shown in Fig. 3, flap adhesive 56 extends between the top and bottom halves of the flaps 24).
Regarding claim 19, Lavash teaches A feminine hygiene article (see at least col. 3, lines 60-65) comprising:
a topsheet (see topsheet 40 in Figs. 3a-b);
a backsheet (see backsheet 42 in Figs. 3a-b);
an absorbent core (see absorbent core 44 in Figs. 3a-b) disposed between the topsheet and the backsheet (see Figs. 3a-b), wherein the absorbent core has a first longitudinal core edge and a second longitudinal core edge (see Figs. 3 and 3a-b); and
a first wing (see one of flaps 24 in Figs. 3a-b) extending laterally outboard the first longitudinal core edge (as shown in Fig. 3, the flaps extend laterally outboard from the longitudinal core edge of the absorbent core 44, shown as broken lines around the perimeter of the absorbent core 44),
wherein the first wing comprises a portion of the backsheet (col. 5, lines 24-27 teach that the backsheet 42 may form a surface of flap 24; therefore, as shown in Fig. 3a, flaps 24 are a portion of the backsheet 42), a leading edge portion (as shown in Fig. 3, and as broadly recited, the leading edge portion is the bottom half of the flap 24), a trailing edge portion (as shown in Fig. 3, and as broadly recited, the trailing edge portion is the top half of the flap 24) and an outer most edge portion joining the leading edge portion and the trailing edge portion (see at least Fig. 3),
the first wing has a first wing portion (the first wing portion is considered to be first portion 95 in Figs. 3a-b plus a portion of second portion 96 between first portion 95 and a position outboard from flap adhesive 56) extending from the first longitudinal core edge to a first edge (as shown in Fig. 3a, the first portion 95 extends from the longitudinal core edge of the absorbent core 44 to a first edge at a position outboard from flap adhesive 56) and a second wing portion (in Figs. 3a-b, the second wing portion is considered to be between a position outboard from flap adhesive 56 and distal edge 34) extending from the first edge to an outer most edge portion (as shown in Fig. 3a, the second portion 96 extends from the first at a position outboard from flap adhesive 56 to an outer most edge, such as at numeral 34),
an adhesive in the first wing portion (see flap pleat restraints 66 in Fig. 3b; col. 20, lines 23-26 teach that the flap pleat restraint 66 can be an adhesive), and
mechanical bonding in the second wing portion (see flap pleat restraints 66 in Fig. 3b; col. 20, lines 12-14 teach that flaps 24 can have two flap pleat restraints 66; col. 20, lines 23-26 teach that the flap pleat restraint 66 can be a mechanical bond);
wherein an overlap is provided between the adhesive of the first wing portion and the mechanical bonding of the second wing portion (as shown in at least Fig. 3b, flap pleat restraints 66 overlap one another), wherein the overlap is greater than 0 mm (see at least Fig. 3b); and
wherein the first wing has a wearer facing surface and a garment facing surface(see at least Fig. 3a), wherein the garment facing surface comprises a garment fastening adhesive (see flap adhesive 56 in Fig. 3a) and wherein a gap is present between the garment facing adhesive and the second wing portion (the second wing portion is considered to be between a position outboard from flap adhesive 56 and distal edge 34; therefore, as shown in Fig. 3a, a gap exists between flap adhesive 56 and the second wing portion) and wherein the gap is greater than 0 mm (a gap exists between flap adhesive 56 and the second wing portion which is greater than 0 mm).
However, Lavash fails to explicitly teach wherein the first wing comprises a portion of the topsheet, wherein the first layer and the second layer are joined by an adhesive in the first wing portion, or wherein the first layer and the second layer are joined by mechanical bonding in the second wing portion, as required by the claim.
Brisebois teaches a first wing (see flap 34 in Fig. 3D) that comprises a first layer (see inner layer 46 in Fig. 3D) and a second layer (see outer layer 44 in Fig. 3D). Brisebois further teaches that inner layer 46 is made of a material identical to the material of the topsheet 56 (see para. [0065]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lavash to incorporate the teachings of Brisebois by making the first wing comprise a first and second layer at least because Brisebois teaches that having an outer layer is advantageously soft and non-irritating to the skin of a wearer, while having an inner layer is preferable for liquid-impervious properties (see para. [0065]). Additionally, since Lavash teaches that the topsheet 40 may form one surface of the flaps 24 (see col. 5, lines 24-26), in the device of Lavash in view of Brisebois, the first wing comprises a portion of the topsheet. Additionally, in the device of Lavash in view of Brisebois, the first and second layers are joined by the adhesive in the first wing portion and the first and second layers are joined by the mechanical bonding in the second wing portion (see flap pleat restraints 66 in Fig. 3b and col. 20, lines 23-26 teaching that the flap pleat restraint 66 can be an adhesive or a mechanical bond).
Claims 5-6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavash (U.S. Patent No. 5,578,026 A), in view of Brisebois (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2005/0124958 A1), as applied to claims 1, 4, and 8, above, and further in view of Nomoto (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2012/0022484 A1).
Regarding claims 5-6, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 4. However, neither Lavash nor Brisebois explicitly teach wherein the overlap is greater than 0 millimeters (mm) and less than 2 mm, or wherein the overlap is about 1 mm, as required by the claims.
Nomoto teaches an analogous sanitary napkin (see Abstract) comprising a circumferential edge region 8P that is 2 mm to 10 mm (see para. [0064]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lavash in view of Brisebois to incorporate the teachings of Nomoto by making the overlap greater than 0 mm and less than 2 mm (as applied to claim 5), and/or making the overlap about 1 mm (as applied to claim 6) at least since because the circumferential edge region 8P of Nomoto (see Fig. 1) is analogous to seam 36 of Lavash (see Fig. 3) and flap pleat restraints 66 are shown in Figs. 3a-b of Lavash to be of similar dimensions as seam 36. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably recognized that seam 36 and flap pleat restraints 66 are between 2 mm to 10 mm (as taught in para. [0064] of Nomoto) at least since it has been held that “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 8. However, neither Lavash nor Brisebois explicitly teach wherein the gap is at least about 3 mm or less than about 9 mm, as required by the claim.
Nomoto teaches a circumferential edge region 8P that is 2 mm to 10 mm (see para. [0064]). As shown in Fig. 1, sticking portions 11 is separated from circumferential edge region 8P by a distance that is at least 2 mm to 10 mm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lavash in view of Brisebois to incorporate the teachings of Nomoto by making the gap at least about 3 mm or less than about 9 mm at least in order to suppress leakage of absorbed fluid, as taught by Nomoto (see para. [0064]) and at least since it has been held that “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, the device of Lavash in view of Brisebois teaches wherein the first layer forms a wearer facing surface of the first wing (see para. [0065] of Brisebois) and the second layer forms a garment facing surface of the first wing (see para. [0065] of Brisebois); wherein the second layer forms the outer most edge portion of the first wing (as seen in Fig. 3D of Brisebois, the outer layer 44 and inner layer 46 form the outer most edge portion at seal 70).
However, neither Lavash nor Brisebois explicitly teach wherein there is a gap between the outer most edge portion and an outer edge of the first layer that is less than about 3 mm, as required by the claim.
Nomoto teaches a circumferential edge region 8P that is 2 mm to 10 mm (see para. [0064]). As shown in Fig. 1, sticking portions 11 is separated from circumferential edge region 8P by a distance that is at least 2 mm to 10 mm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lavash in view of Brisebois to incorporate the teachings of Nomoto by making the gap between the outer most edge portion and an outer edge of the first layer that is less than about 3 mm at least in order to suppress leakage of absorbed fluid, as taught by Nomoto (see para. [0064]) and at least since it has been held that “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); see also MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 5-6, 9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavash (U.S. Patent No. 5,578,026 A), in view of Brisebois (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2005/0124958 A1), as applied to claims 1, 4, and 8, above, and further in view of Nomoto (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2012/0022484 A1).
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lavash (U.S. Patent No. 5,578,026 A), in view of Brisebois (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2005/0124958 A1), as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Vohwinkel (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2018/0325751 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Additionally, Lavash teaches comprising a second wing (see flaps 24 in Fig. 3) extending laterally outboard the second longitudinal core edge (as shown in Fig. 3, the flaps extend laterally outboard from the longitudinal core edge of the absorbent core 44, shown as broken lines around the perimeter of the absorbent core 44). However, neither Lavash nor Brisebois explicitly teach wherein the first wing and the second wing are asymmetrical about a longitudinal centerline of the feminine hygiene article, as required by the claim.
Vohwinkel teaches an analogous feminist hygiene article (see Abstract) comprising a first wing (60 in Fig. 1A and para. [0047]) and a second wing (70), wherein the first wing and the second wing are asymmetrical about a longitudinal centerline of the feminine hygiene article (see for example Fig. 1A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lavash in view of Brisebois to incorporate the teachings of Vohwinkel by making the first wing and the second wing asymmetrical about a longitudinal centerline of the feminine hygiene article at least in order to have uniquely shaped wings which can provide cues on proper attachment of the hygiene article to a user’s undergarment, as taught by Vohwinkel (see at least Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Lavash in view of Brisebois teach the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, neither Lavash nor Brisebois explicitly teach wherein the leading edge portion and the trailing edge portion are asymmetrical about a transverse wing axis, as required by the claim.
Vohwinkel teaches a leading edge portion and a trailing edge portion that are asymmetrical about a transverse wing axis (see at least Fig. 1A and para. [0008]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Lavash in view of Brisebois to incorporate the teachings of Vohwinkel by making the leading edge portion and the trailing edge portion are asymmetrical about a transverse wing axis at least in order to have uniquely shaped wings which can provide cues on proper attachment of the hygiene article to a user’s undergarment, as taught by Vohwinkel (see at least Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kigata (U.S. Pre Grant Pub. No. 2006/0142710 A1) – Absorbent Article
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIHAD DAKKAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0567. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9AM - 5PM 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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/JIHAD DAKKAK/ Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/SARAH AL HASHIMI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights