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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: flow guiding piece and impact separation piece in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: flow guiding piece in claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 & 102a2 as being clearly anticipated by NAKASUGI (DE 102014018765 A1).
NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as follows:
An air inlet assembly (e.g., inlet system body 5; fig. 1-9, 11 & 13-14) of an engine 1, comprising:
an air inlet manifold 27 (fig. 2-6; “As it is in 2 to 6 shown is the wide intake tract 27 from an upper end portion of the narrow intake tract 26 branched to extend substantially in the left-and-right direction. As it is in 4 Shown are a plurality of connection openings 27a that the inlet openings 1b the respective cylinder 1a correspond, in the wide intake tract 27 opened, and by attaching the inlet system body 5 on the engine 1 communicates the wide intake system 27 with the respective cylinders 1a through the connection openings 27a. The downstream intake tract, which has a substantially T-shape, is through the narrow and the wide intake tract 26 and 27 educated. As it is in 5 and 6 is shown, is the first gas inlet opening 18 in the narrow intake tract 26 formed, and the high-pressure EGR gas is with the intake air inside the narrow intake 26 mixed.”);
an intercooler 40 (fig. 5-7, 9 & 13-14; “The intercooler 40 is a cube-shaped structural body having a flow path therein where heat exchange with the intake air is performed, and the intercooler 40 is housed in the interior S. The interior S is through the intercooler 40 in an intake air intake chamber 22 into which uncooled intake air flows, and an intake air discharge chamber 23 divided, flows from the cooled intake air.”) having a first air inlet (e.g., introductory section 21; fig. 9) and an air outlet 25 (fig. 2-3, 5-6 & 8; “As it is in 2 . 3 . 5 . 6 and 8th is shown is the connecting portion 25 with the narrow intake tract 26, which extends substantially upwardly as it moves along the top of the chamber space 20 curves and narrows the passage area as compared to the chamber space 20 is.”), and the air outlet 23 attached to and being in communication with the air inlet manifold 27 (fig. 5-6); and
a throttle valve 50 (fig. 9; “As it is in 9 is shown is the valve unit 50 adjacent to or adjacent to the introduction section 21 provided and with the second intake pipe 2 B connected. The valve unit 50 contains the coupling passage or tract 51 (which forms the upstream intake duct) having a cylindrical shape and between the introduction portion 21 and the second intake pipe 2B intervenes, a valve body 52 (Throttle valve), which is a circular plate and is mounted so that it is inside the coupling tract 51 is rotatable, and a valve control unit 53 for controlling the rotation of the valve body 52 , The valve unit 50 changes an opening of the Intake tract by controlling the rotation of the valve body 52 to adjust an introduction amount of intake air into the chamber space 20 flows.”) disposed on the first air inlet 21 to control an air inflow amount.
2. The air inlet assembly according to claim 1, wherein the intercooler 40 (fig. 5-7, 9 & 13-14) comprises:
an intercooler body (i.e., chamber space 20; fig. 2-9);
an air inlet cavity 22; and
an air outlet cavity 23, the intercooler body 20 disposed between the air inlet cavity 22 and the air outlet cavity 23, and being in communication with the air inlet cavity 22 and the air outlet cavity 23, the first air inlet 21 disposed on the air inlet cavity 22, and the air outlet 25 disposed on the air outlet cavity 23.
4. The air inlet assembly according to claim 2, wherein the air inlet cavity 22 comprises a first air inlet section 241 (see annotated fig. 9 below for illustration), a second air inlet section 242, and a third air inlet section 243 that are in communication with each other, the first air inlet section 241 is in communication with the first air inlet 21, and the third air inlet section 243 is in communication with the intercooler body 20, to guide gas into the intercooler body 20.
5. The air inlet assembly according to claim 4, wherein a cross-sectional area of the third air inlet section 243 is greater than a cross-sectional area of the first air inlet section 241, and a cross-sectional area of the second air inlet section 242 increases from the first air inlet section 241 to the third air inlet section 243.
7. The air inlet assembly according to claim 2, wherein the air outlet cavity 23 (see annotated fig. 13 below for illustration) comprises a first air outlet section 251, a second air outlet section 252, and a third air outlet section 253 that are in communication with each other, the first air outlet section 251 is in communication with the air outlet 25, and the third air outlet section 253 is in communication with the intercooler body 20, to guide gas into the air inlet manifold 27.
8. The air inlet assembly according to claim 7, wherein a cross-sectional area of the third air outlet section 253 is less than a cross-sectional area of the first air outlet section 251, and a cross-sectional area of the second air outlet section 252 decreases from the first air outlet section 251 to the third air outlet section 253.
11. The air inlet assembly according to claim 2, wherein a plurality of reinforcing ribs (see fig. 2-4 and 8-9) are disposed on outer walls of the air inlet cavity 22 and/or the air outlet cavity 23, and are staggered.
12. The air inlet assembly according to claim 2, wherein the intercooler body 20 comprises a cooling channel 42 (fig. 9; “The intercooler 40 is in the chamber room 20 housed and cools the intake air, which enters the chamber space 20 flows. The intercooler 40 is water-cooled, and cooling water (coolant) is supplied by the water pump 41 in the intercooler 40 over a cooling tube 42 fed while it circulates.”), and the intercooler body 40 comprises a water inlet pipe connector (one of 42) in communication with a first end of the cooling channel and a water outlet pipe connector (the other of 42) in communication with a second end of the cooling channel.
17. The air inlet assembly according to claim 13, wherein the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 (see fig. 13) comprises:
an impact separation piece 1101 (see fig. 13 below) disposed in the pressure stabilizing cavity 110; and
a flow guiding piece (e.g., baffle plates 28, 31) disposed in the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 and configured to guide condensed water in the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 to the air inlet passage 120 (fig. 13 below; “The baffle plate 28 starts from the condensed water coming from the intercooler 40 is generated, and the residual liquid in the lower part of the chamber space 20 held, the liquid droplets, which are caught by the intake air, and the second baffle plate 31 , which is downstream of the baffle plate 28 is provided in the flow direction, liquid drops that are not from the baffle 28 can be captured. Thus, the capturing amount can be increased. This is particularly effective when capturing the condensed water that is at an upper part of the charge air cooler 40 liable.”).
18. The air inlet assembly according to claim 17, wherein:
the impact separation piece is an impact grid (28, 31), the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 comprises a second air inlet (i.e., at 25 in fig. 13), and the impact grid 28, 31 corresponds to the second air inlet (at 25); and
the flow guiding piece 28, 31 comprises a plurality of flow guiding baffles 28, 31, the air inlet manifold 27 comprises a plurality of air inlet passages, each of the flow guiding baffles extends toward the air inlet passages and configured to guide condensed water in the pressure stabilizing cavity to the air inlet passages (“The baffle plate 28 starts from the condensed water coming from the intercooler 40 is generated, and the residual liquid in the lower part of the chamber space 20 held, the liquid droplets, which are caught by the intake air, and the second baffle plate 31 , which is downstream of the baffle plate 28 is provided in the flow direction, liquid drops that are not from the baffle 28 can be captured. Thus, the capturing amount can be increased. This is particularly effective when capturing the condensed water that is at an upper part of the charge air cooler 40 liable.”).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 9-10, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKASUGI ‘765.
Re claim 3, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to wherein a gas storage capacity of the intercooler 40 body 20 is from about 1200 ml to about 1300 ml.
In intercooler / charge-air-cooler design for a cooling system, a designer can manipulate many parameters such as cooler size, gas storage capacity and efficiency, and strength in order to optimize cost and space available to achieve the desired air flow. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This holds especially true for the charge-air-cooler / intercooler art as other parameters can make up for specific limitations such as gas storage capacity.
Based on the discussion above, it would have been an obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to specify the gas storage capacity of NAKASUGI ‘765 to have a gas storage capacity from about 1200 ml to about 1300 ml., in order to optimize cost and space available to achieve the desired gas cooling efficiency.
Re claim 6, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein a space between a front side wall and a rear side wall of the second air inlet section 242 increases from right to left, an angle α (see angle “a” in annotated fig. 9 below) between the front side wall and the rear side wall of the second air inlet section 242; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to the angle alpha “a” being from about 50° to about 70°. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the angle dimensions for the angle alpha “a” as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Re claim 9, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein a space between a front side wall and a rear side wall of the second air outlet section 252 decreases from right to left, an angle β (see angle Beta “B” in annotated fig. 13 below) between the rear side wall of the second air outlet section 252 and a cross-section of the air outlet cavity 23; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to the angle Beta “B” being from about 20° to about 40°. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the angle dimensions for the angle Beta “B” as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Re claim 10, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein a space between an upper side wall and a lower side wall of the second air outlet section 252 (see annotated fig. 13 below) decreases from right to left, an angle γ (see angle “G” in annotated fig. 13 below) between the upper side wall and the lower side wall of the second air outlet section 252; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to the angle γ being from about 25° to about 35°. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the angle dimensions for the angle γ as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Re claim 13, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein the air inlet manifold 27 (see annotated fig. 13 below) comprises a pressure stabilizing cavity 110 and an air inlet passage 120, a first end of the air inlet passage 120 is in communication with the pressure stabilizing cavity 110, a second end of the air inlet passage 120 is in communication with an engine cylinder block, a bottom wall of the air inlet passage 120 comprises a first wall section 121, the first wall section 121 is connected to a bottom wall of the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 and is disposed obliquely downward with respect to the bottom wall of the pressure stabilizing cavity 110, an angle δ (see angle “F” in annotated fig. 13 below) is formed between the first wall section 121 and the bottom wall of the pressure stabilizing cavity 110; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to the angle δ being from about 2° to about 5°. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the angle dimensions for the angle δ as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Re claim 14, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including wherein the bottom wall of the air inlet passage 120 (see annotated fig. 13 below) further comprises: a second wall section 122 connected to a side of the first wall section 121 away from the pressure stabilizing cavity 110 and disposed obliquely downward with respect to the first wall section 121, and an angle ε (see angle “E” in annotated fig. 13 below) formed between the second wall section 122 and the first wall section 121; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to the angle ε being from about 24° to about 26°. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide the angle dimensions for the angle ε as claimed because it has been held that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final applications.
Re claims 15-16, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed; however, NAKASUGI is completely silent with respect to wherein a volume of the pressure stabilizing cavity 100 is from about 1 L to about 1.2 L, and wherein a length L of the air inlet passage is about 70 mm to about 80 mm.
In intercooler / charge-air-cooler design for a cooling system, a designer can manipulate many parameters such as cooler size, gas storage capacity and efficiency, and strength in order to optimize cost and space available to achieve the desired air flow. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). This holds especially true for the charge-air-cooler / intercooler art as other parameters can make up for specific limitations such as volume of the pressure stabilizing cavity and length of air inlet passage.
Based on the discussion above, it would have been an obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to specify the pressure stabilizing cavity volume and air inlet passage length of NAKASUGI ‘765 to have a volume from about 1 L to about 1.2 L., and length from about 70 mm to about 80 mm, in order to optimize cost and space available to achieve the desired gas cooling efficiency.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NAKASUGI ‘765 in view of LARSSON (WO 9711267 A1).
Re claims 19-20, NAKASUGI ‘765 discloses the invention as essentially claimed including a vehicle (implicit) and a mounting bracket (i.e., as shown in figure 4, but un-referenced) connected to the intercooler 40, and that the intercooler 40 is disposed below the air inlet manifold 27. NAKASUGI does not teach that the intercooler disposed above the air inlet manifold. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to dispose the intercooler above the air inlet manifold, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
However, NAKASUGI ‘765 fails to explicitly teach that the mounting bracket is disposed on the cylinder head.
The patent application to LARSSON ‘267 teaches a similar intercooler mounting system for an ICE. Specifically, LARSSON teaches the following: “In the drawing, the reference notation 10 denotes schematically a charge air cooler placed between the inlet pipe 7 and the inlet duct 6. The charge air cooler 10 should be placed as close to the cylinder head 3 as possible and it is advantageous for it to be mounted directly on the cylinder head 3. This creates the possibility of the exhaust gases being initially cooled when they flow backwards in towards the inlet pipe 7 and being thereafter cooled again when they flow back in towards the combustion chamber. In addition, the combustion air fed to the cylinder 1 via the inlet line is cooled conventionally by the charge air cooler 10.”.
In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have disposed the mounting bracket of NAKASUGI ‘765 on the cylinder head, as clearly suggested and taught by LARSSON, since the disposition would allow for a much more efficient cooling of the inlet flow towards the inlet passages of the air inlet manifold.
PNG
media_image1.png
1292
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1004
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The various prior arts made of record teach very similar intercooling systems for ICEs wherein the inlet of the intercooler is provided with a throttle valve body.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5424. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7am-pm (CT).
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, Lindsay Low can be reached at 571-272-1196. 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.
HUNG Q. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3747
/HUNG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747