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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“further comprising at least one intake fan located internal to the housing” in claim 7.
“wherein the central unit has a controller communicatively associated with one or more of the plurality of components; wherein the controller is configured to operate the air circulatory system in a plurality of modes of operation wherein the controller selectively operates one or more of the components” in claim 11.
“further comprising one or more sensors for sensing a parameter which may be provided to the controller” in claim 19.
“further comprising a user interface that is communicatively linked to the controller” in claim 20.
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the term “may” in line 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 20, the phrase “wherein a user may provides inputs to the user interface” is grammatically incorrect and for examination purposes will be interpreted as -- wherein a user may provide inputs to the user interface --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 12-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claim 2 indefinite because it is unclear what “about 3000 BTUs” is. Thus, as used to qualify the capacity of the air conditioning system, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “a capacity” which renders the claim indefinite in view of claim 1. Claim 1 from which claim 2 depends already discloses “a capacity”. Therefore, it is unclear if the disclosed “capacity” of claim 2 is referring to the previously disclosed “capacity” of claim 1 or something entirely different. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 6, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claim 6 indefinite because it is unclear what “about an exterior wall” is. Thus, as used to qualify the location of the exit vent relative to the exterior wall, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claim 8, the term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders claim 8 indefinite because it is unclear what “about an exterior wall” is. Thus, as used to qualify the location of the intake vent relative to the exterior wall, this term renders the same indeterminate and the claim (and all claims depending therefrom) indefinite with regard to the scope of protection sought thereby.
Regarding claims 12-13, the claims recite “the mode of operation” which renders the claims indefinite in view of claim 11. Here, the disclosed “the mode of operation” is understood to refer to a single mode of operation. However, claim 11 from which claims 12 and 13 depend, discloses “a plurality of modes of operation”. Therefore, it is not entirely clear which specific mode of operation out of the plurality of modes of operation claims 12 and 13 are referencing. More clarity is requested.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “wherein the one or more inputs to the controller include at least one of temperature or humidity, or both, and wherein the temperature or humidity may be sensed” which renders the claim indefinite. The claim discloses providing parameters such as temperature and pressure to the controller. However, it is unclear how the system can measure those parameters when no structure capable of doing the measurement is provided. More clarity is requested.
Claims 15-16 recite the limitation “the exclusion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the phrase “the exclusion” will be interpreted as -- an exclusion --
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “wherein one mode of operation of the plurality of modes of operation includes operating the evaporator, condenser, and compressor to an exclusion of the energy recovery ventilator” which renders the claim indefinite. Referring to Fig. 1 of the drawing, system 100 is illustrated with two inlets (intake vent 122 and exhaust vent 132) which are both coupled to the energy recovery ventilator (EVR). Therefore, regardless of the operating mode, air will always flow through the EVR. Thus, it is unclear which operating mode would exclude the EVR as disclosed by the claim. More clarity is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-14, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wetzel (US 20080250800 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wetzel teaches an air circulatory system (ERV conditioning unit 10 Fig. 1) for supplying conditioned air (paragraph [0012]) to an interior room (corresponds to the disclosed “conditioned space” in paragraph [0032]) of a dwelling (disclosed “house” in the Abstract section), the system comprising: a central unit (corresponds to the unit accommodated inside housing 18 Fig. 6) having a plurality of components (Fig. 6) comprising an energy recovery ventilator (energy recovery core 62 Fig. 5), an evaporator (evaporator coil 84 Fig. 6), a condenser (condenser coil 52 Fig. 6), a compressor (compressor 50 Fig. 6), and wherein the central unit has a controller (control circuit board 92 Fig. 6) communicatively associated with one or more of the plurality of components (paragraph [0048]); wherein the controller is configured to operate the air circulatory system in a plurality of modes of operation (disclosed “heating”, “air conditioning”, and “positive and/or negative pressurization” in paragraph [0019]) wherein the controller selectively operates one or more of the components (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 12, Wetzel teaches wherein the mode of operation is selected by a user (referring to paragraph [0054], a person skilled in the art would recognize that a user has to make the call for cooling/heating when the unit is switched to “unoccupied” mode).
Regarding claim 13, Wetzel teaches wherein the mode of operation is determined by the controller based on one or more inputs to the controller (corresponds to the inputs generated by sensor board 94 Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0014] and [0048]).
Regarding claim 14, Wetzel teaches wherein the one or more inputs to the controller include at least temperature (paragraphs [0014] and [0048]), and wherein the temperature may be sensed from the interior room of the dwelling (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, and due to indefiniteness, Wetzel teaches wherein one mode of operation of the plurality of modes of operation (any of the cooling or heating mode that is performed under positive or negative pressure since one of fan 66 or 68 is not operated during any of those modes as described in paragraph [0021]) includes operating the evaporator, condenser, and compressor to an exclusion of the energy recovery ventilator (understood to be when either the exhaust fan or the intake fan is turned off as described in paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 17, Wetzel teaches wherein one mode of operation of the plurality of modes of operation (any of the cooling or heating mode that is performed under balance pressure since both fans 66 and 68 are being operated during any of those modes as described in paragraph [0021]) includes operating the energy recovery ventilator, the evaporator, the condenser, and the compressor (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Wetzel teaches further comprising one or more sensors (sensor board 94 Fig. 6) for sensing a parameter (paragraphs [0014] and [0048]) which may be provided to the controller (paragraphs [0014] and [0048]), wherein the one or more sensors may sense temperature (paragraphs [0014] and [0048]).
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzel.
Regarding claim 1, Wetzel teaches an air circulatory system (ERV conditioning unit 10 Fig. 1) for supplying conditioned air (paragraph [0012]) to an interior room (corresponds to the disclosed “conditioned space” in paragraph [0032]) of a dwelling (disclosed “house” in the Abstract section), the system comprising: a housing (housing 18 Fig. 1) having an exterior (Fig. 1) and an interior (Fig. 2), the interior comprising a plurality of compartments (upper portion 24 and lower portion 12 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0031]), wherein the interior comprises: an energy recovery ventilator (energy recovery core 62 Fig. 5) configured to transfer heat (disclosed “sensible heat” in paragraph [0046]) and moisture (disclosed “humidity” in paragraph [0046]) from a first air stream (corresponds to either one of the two airflows forming the counterflow inside energy recovery core 62 described in paragraph [0045] and illustrated in Fig. 6) to a second air stream (corresponds to either one of the two airflows forming the counterflow inside energy recovery core 62 described in paragraph [0045] and illustrated in Fig. 6); and an air conditioning system (corresponds to the disclosed “refrigeration circuit” in paragraph [0044]) comprising a condenser (condenser coil 52 Fig. 6), compressor (compressor 50 Fig. 6), and evaporator (evaporator coil 84 Fig. 6), wherein the air conditioning system includes a plurality of refrigerant lines (high pressure line V and liquid line L Fig. 6) containing pre-pressurized refrigerant (paragraph [0044], where refrigerant inside the high pressure and liquid lines are pressurized).
Wetzel teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the air conditioning system has a capacity from 1000 to 4000 BTUs”.
However, Wetzel does disclose a “nominal cooling capacity of e.g., 5000 BTU/H” (see paragraph [0020]).
Therefore, the “wherein the air conditioning system has a capacity from 1000 to 4000 BTUs” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is “a capacity from 1000 to 4000 BTUs”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a cooling system with a given cooling capacity, was disclosed in the prior art by Wetzel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a system “wherein the air conditioning system has a capacity from 1000 to 4000 BTUs”.
Regarding claim 2, Wetzel teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein the air conditioning system has a capacity of about 3000 BTUs”.
However, Wetzel does disclose a “nominal cooling capacity of e.g., 5000 BTU/H” (see paragraph [0020]).
Therefore, the “wherein the air conditioning system has a capacity of about 3000 BTUs” is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is “a capacity of about 3000 BTUs”.
Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. a cooling system with a given cooling capacity, was disclosed in the prior art by Wetzel, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a system “wherein the air conditioning system has a capacity of about 3000 BTUs”.
Regarding claim 3, Wetzel teaches wherein the plurality of compartments includes a first compartment (upper portion 24 Fig. 1) having the energy recovery ventilator therein (Fig. 5), and a second compartment (lower portion 12 Fig. 1) having the air conditioning system therein (paragraph [0031]), wherein the first compartment and second compartment are isolated (Fig. 2 where the two compartments are illustrated as separated).
Regarding claim 4, Wetzel teaches further comprising at least one exhaust fan (room air exhaust fan 64 Fig. 6) and configured to generate at least one exhaust air stream (corresponds to the disclosed “room indoor air” being drawn by fan 64 as described in paragraph [0045]) directed toward the housing (Fig. 6).
Wetzel teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the exhaust fan located external to the housing”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the exhaust fan located external to the housing” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing an exhaust airflow. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of Wetzel and meet the claimed limitations in order to produce the predictable results of providing an exhaust airflow.
Regarding claim 5, Wetzel teaches further comprising one duct (plenum 80 Fig. 6) having a first end (end of plenum 80 connected to intake 72 Fig. 6) being connected to the at least one exhaust fan (Fig. 6 where exhaust fan 64 is fluidly connected to plenum 80 via IERV core 62) and a second end (end of plenum 80 connected to return air grille 38 Fig. 6) being connected to the housing (Fig. 6).
Wetzel teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the one duct configured to direct the exhaust air stream from the at least one exhaust fan to the housing”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the one duct configured to direct the exhaust air stream from the at least one exhaust fan to the housing” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing a path for the exhaust airflow. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of Wetzel and meet the claimed limitations in order to produce the predictable results of providing a path for the exhaust airflow.
Regarding claim 6, Wetzel teaches further comprising an exit vent (discharge air duct 30 Fig. 6) disposed about an exterior wall (room wall W Fig. 6) adjacent to an outdoor environment (“outdoor” Fig. 6) for venting the exhaust air stream to the outdoor environment (Fig. 6), and wherein one duct (plenum 56 Fig. 6) is connected between the housing and the exit vent configured to direct the exhaust air stream to the exit vent (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, Wetzel teaches further comprising at least one intake fan (fresh air intake fan 66 Fig. 6) located internal to the housing and configured to generate at least one intake air stream (disclosed “fresh outdoor air” in paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Wetzel teaches further comprising one duct (plenum 60 Fig. 6) with a first end (corresponds to the end of plenum 60 connected to fresh air intake port 68 Fig. 6) and a second end (corresponds to the end of plenum 60 connected to pre-filter 58 Fig. 6) connected to an intake vent (fresh air intake duct 28 Fig. 6) disposed about an exterior wall (room wall W Fig. 6) adjacent to an outdoor environment (“outdoor” Fig. 6) for intake of air from the outdoor environment (Fig. 6).
Wetzel teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the one duct connected on the first end to the housing”.
However, Applicant has not disclosed that having “the one duct connected on the first end to the housing” does anything more than produce the predictable result of providing a path for the outdoor fresh air to flow into the system. Since it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to modify the apparatus of Wetzel and meet the claimed limitations in order to produce the predictable results of providing a path for the outdoor fresh air to flow into the system.
Regarding claim 9, Wetzel teaches wherein the first air stream is an intake air stream (corresponds to the air flowing through plenum 60 Fig. 6), the intake air stream directed through the energy recovery ventilator such that heat and moisture transfer to the intake air stream (Fig. 6 and paragraph [0046]), and wherein the intake air stream contacts the evaporator (Fig. 6) and then is supplied through a supply vent (supply duct 34 Fig. 6) into the interior room of the dwelling (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Wetzel teaches wherein the first compartment contains sub-compartments (understood to be the paths formed by the disclosed “parallel metal plates” in paragraph [0046]) for isolating the first air stream from the second air stream (paragraph [0046]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzel as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Haglid (US 20080003940 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Wetzel teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein one mode of operation of the plurality of modes of operation includes operating the energy recovery ventilator to an exclusion of the evaporator, condenser, and compressor”.
However, Haglid teaches wherein one mode of operation (disclosed “supplemental cooling mode” in paragraph [0067]) of a plurality of modes of operation (paragraph [0010] where the disclosed “plurality of operating modes” corresponds to that of Wetzel) includes operating an energy recovery ventilator (paragraphs [0067] to [0069] where ventilating system 10 corresponds to the ERV of Wetzel) to an exclusion of an evaporator, a condenser, and a compressor (paragraph [0069] where it is understood that the “supplemental cooling mode” can be performed without the use of refrigeration unit 32 Fig. 1, refrigeration unit 32 corresponds to the refrigeration system of Wetzel) to cool the enclosed space using the natural cooling potential of the outside air (paragraph [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Wetzel to include “wherein one mode of operation of the plurality of modes of operation includes operating the energy recovery ventilator to an exclusion of the evaporator, condenser, and compressor” in view of the teachings of Haglid to cool the enclosed space using the natural cooling potential of the outside air.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzel as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Ki et al. (KR20220122032A, herein after referred to as Ki).
Regarding claim 18, Wetzel teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein one mode of operation of the plurality of modes of operation includes operating the energy recovery ventilator for a first length of time, and operating the evaporator, the condenser, and the compressor for a second length of time, wherein the first length of time and the second length of time overlap”.
However, Ki teaches wherein one mode of operation (simultaneous mode S835 Fig. 8) of a plurality of modes of operation (the disclosed operation modes in paragraph [0140] correspond to the plurality of modes of operation of Wetzel) includes operating an energy recovery ventilator (ventilation device 10 Fig. 2 corresponds to the ERV of Wetzel) for a first length of time (paragraph [0039]), and operating an evaporator (indoor unit 30 Fig. 1 corresponds to the evaporator of Wetzel), a condenser (outdoor unit 20 Fig. 1 corresponds to the condenser of Wetzel), and a compressor (the disclosed “compressor” in paragraph [0048] corresponds to that of Wetzel)for a second length of time (paragraph [0039]), wherein the first length of time and the second length of time overlap (paragraph [0039]) to provide a system where the refrigeration system and the ERV operate efficiently in conjunction (paragraph [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Wetzel to include “wherein one mode of operation of the plurality of modes of operation includes operating the energy recovery ventilator for a first length of time, and operating the evaporator, the condenser, and the compressor for a second length of time, wherein the first length of time and the second length of time overlap” in view of the teachings of Ki to provide a system where the refrigeration system and the ERV operate efficiently in conjunction.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wetzel as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Walowicz et al. (US 20250067455 A1, herein after referred to as Walowicz).
Regarding claim 20, Wetzel teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “further comprising a user interface that is communicatively linked to the controller, wherein a user may provide inputs to the user interface for selecting one or more modes of operation of the plurality of modes of operation”.
However, Walowicz teaches further comprising a user interface (thermostat 120 Fig. 1 and paragraph [0029]) that is communicatively linked to a controller (paragraph [0016] where controller 158 Fig. 1 corresponds to the controller of Wetzel), wherein a user (paragraph [0029]) may provide inputs (desired set-point temperature 178 paragraph [0029]) to the user interface for selecting one or more modes of operation of a plurality of modes of operation (the disclosed cooling or heating modes in paragraph [0023] corresponds to the plurality of modes of operation of Wetzel) to display information related to the operation and/or status of the system (paragraph [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Wetzel to include “further comprising a user interface that is communicatively linked to the controller, wherein a user may provide inputs to the user interface for selecting one or more modes of operation of the plurality of modes of operation” in view of the teachings of Walowicz to display information related to the operation and/or status of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM.
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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights