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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 1/31/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it was not filled out correctly. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
While the patent number was provided for #2 in the comments section, the IDS was not filled out completely. USPN 141346 is provided as referenced herein; sometimes the system requires a leading zero to place it in the standardized format.
The information disclosure statement filed 1/31/2025 additionally fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 it uses legal phrasing (“consists of”) and the overall similarity with the claim construction. 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).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: starting in ¶0048: the figures do not match up with their description. Note that Fig. 2 does not illustrate three entrances. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“is comprised of” should be replaced with, e.g. --comprises-- starting claim 1, line 1;
“also” should be removed by reorganizing the claim [claim 1, line 4];
“can” should be replaced with --is capable of-- or similar language [claim 1, line 6]; and
“its” [claim 1, line 15 & line 23] should be replaced with a positively claimed structure. 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 1-14 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.
The claims are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. Each of claims 1-14 must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. Below is found an exemplary list of issues, but the specification and claims as a whole should be reviewed for readability, consistency, and clarity:
Regarding claims 1-13, the phrase “or the like,” implied by “-shaped” or “-like” renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “or the like”), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Each of the following terms, by using “-shaped” or “-like”, causes the reader to question what the metes and bounds of each shape, feature, or container, is and what the inventor intends by each phrase:
“a lid-shaped container” [introduced in claim 1, line 1, and recited in each of claims 2-10];
“a tunnel-shaped bridge(s)” used interchangeably with “entrance” and “structure” [introduced in claim 1, lines 1-2 and further recited in each of claims 2, 3, & 9-13];
“step-like” [introduced in claim 1, line 23, and further recited in each of claims 4 & 9]; and
“bump-like” [claim 9].
Due to the lack of organization, it is unclear whether aspects are being reintroduced or double included.
RE the phrase “[T]he lid-shaped container is adapted to fit over a bucket container.” [claim 1, lines 2-3] Is “a bucket container” precluding or including the bucket which has been introduced in claim 1, line 1?
It is paramount to the understanding of the claim and disclosure to use the same language consistently throughout the claims. Thus, the following terms should be updated to mimic language previously established:
“the short tunnel-shaped entrances” [claim 1, line 5].
RE the phrase “therefore, it makes the two side walls to be contiguous,” [claim 1, lines 7-8]: how does “it” cause two separately claimed structures to be contiguous, and what is “it”?
RE the phrase “[e]ach of the tunnel-shaped entrances is fitted with a one-way swing door,” [claim 1, lines 8-9] is then repeated as “[e]ach of the short tunnel-shaped entrances fitted with the one-way swing door is called a connector of the lid-shaped container”- what structure or limitation does calling a structure another term further provide? This appears to be overly verbose by introducing unnecessary terms into the claim construction. Note that similar phrases are further found in claim 1, lines 11-12, lines 14-15. A review of the claims should address the repetitious phrasing.
Claims 1 & 4 recites the following limitations. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the claim.
“the floor” [claim 1, line 16];
“the connector” [claim 1, line 19];
“the contiguous enclosed wall” [claim 1, lines 19-20]; and
“[t]he wider step-like feature” [claim 4, lines 3-4].
The last several sentences of claim 1, beginning with “At the same time…”, render the claim vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is intended to happen at the same time, especially in light of the three stages which appear to be attempting to provide an order to the claimed components.
Each of dependent claims 2-14 recites “The enclosed mouse trap container” in the preamble, which is inconsistent with the “enclosed mouse trap” of claim 1 from which each claim ultimately depends.
RE Claim 2: “The height of the internal side wall extends from the floor to the roof of the lid- shaped container.” It is unclear how the floor extends to the roof.
RE Claim 2: “the removable roof, the floor, and the outer side wall” further modify “the outer side wall” none of which has been claimed in claim 1.
RE Claim 2: “The outer side wall has one or two short tunnel-shaped entrances each fitted with one-way swing door; the connector(s).” is not clear what is being required. How does “the connector(s)” weave in with the rest of the claim?
RE Claim 4: the step-like features are first claimed as a portion of the lid container, and then of the plank. How are both true?
RE Claim 4: “a step-like features” is it requiring one or more than one to meet the claim limitation?
RE Claim 4: “The wider step-like feature compare to the plank is located lower surface of the plank pivoting downward anterior to the fulcrum while the wider step-like feature compare to the plank is located upper surface of plank pivoting upward posterior to the fulcrum.” Requires the same structure to be both on top and underneath of the plank, and is therefore nonsensical.
RE Claim 10: the scope of the claim is unclear because it appears to require features from claim 1 and claim 9 twice. The claim should be rewritten with clarity in mind.
In light of the above exemplary list of clarity issues, the prior art applied below is as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10 & 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinder (US 20150128480 A1) in view of Deibert (US 20070245617 A1), Schreck (US 1117450 A), and Zeittler (DE 202005009239 U1).
As best understood, RE Claim 1: Pinder discloses an enclosed mouse trap (the device 1 of Pinder held within a warehouse, room, or other containing structure) is comprised of a lid-shaped container (in the same manner as the instant invention, upper housing 25, ¶0039), a bucket
PNG
media_image1.png
558
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
container (lower housing 3), a bridge(s) (5), and an outer container (the warehouse, room, or other containing structure in which the device of Pinder is normally used). The lid-shaped container is adapted to fit over a bucket container (25 atop 3, ¶0039). The lid-shaped container has one (27 forms a tunnel entrance) or1 two short tunnel-shaped entrances and one (panel 11 along fulcrum 13, ¶0032) or2 two planks with fulcrum. The lid-shaped container also has a roof, a floor, an internal side wall, and an outer side wall (as seen in Fig. 1). Each of the short tunnel-shaped entrances provides an entrance in which mice can enter the lid-shaped container (mice can enter via 27). Each of the short tunnel-shaped entrances is located between the internal side wall and the outer side wall (27 connects the inside and outside wall of 25); therefore, it makes the two side walls to be contiguous (forming one container 25). Bait is held within the container (bait on false floor 7). The side walls of the lid-shaped container are comprised of the internal side wall and the outer side wall (Fig. 1). The internal side wall is located on the floor of the lid-shaped container outlining one (within 25, Fig. 1) or3 two planks fitting space. The purpose of having the internal side wall is to guide mice to walk on the plank after mice get inside the lid-shaped container via a connector (Fig. 1). The internal side wall, the outer side wall, and the connector all together forms the contiguous enclosed wall of the lid-shaped container along with the roof and the floor covering except one or two planks fitting space (Fig. 1). The lid-shaped container has one or two planks with fulcrum fitted on the floor depending on whether it has one or two connectors (Fig. 1). Each plank has step-like features along its edges (along 13). The lid-shaped container, the bucket container, and the tunnel-shaped bridges are all fitted within the outer container (within the outer room). As mice advance toward the baits, the plank tilts; and mice fall into a bucket container below ¶0032. The third stage of the enclosed mouse trap is mice entering the lid-shaped container and then walking on the plank with fulcrum fitted on the floor of the lid-shaped container while guided by the internal side wall (Fig. 1).
Pinder is silent to: the bridge being tunnel-shaped. Each of the short tunnel-shaped entrances is fitted with a one-way swing door. Each of the short tunnel-shaped entrances fitted with the one-way swing door is called a connector of the lid-shaped container. The lid-shaped container has one or two connectors. Each connector of the lid-shaped container is fitted with the one-way swing door. The one-way swing door in each of the connectors provides one-way entrance for mice to enter the lid-shaped container which has baits within. Each connector of the lid-shaped container connects with a tunnel-shaped bridge. Each tunnel-shaped bridge has the same one-way swing door fitted within its tunnel-shaped structure. The outer container has three tunnel-shaped entrances each fitted with the same one-way swing door found in the connectors and the tunnel-shaped bridges. Each one-way swing door in the tunnel-shaped entrances of the outer container, the tunnel-shaped bridges, and the connectors allows mice to enter each stage of traps. At the same time, each of the same one-way swing doors prevents mice from escaping each corresponding stage of traps. The first stage of the enclosed mouse trap is mice entering the inside of the outer container via going through one of the three tunnel-shaped entrances fitted on three side walls of the outer container. The second stage of the enclosed mouse trap is the mice getting in and going up the tunnel-shaped bridge from the atrium of the outer container. The third stage of the enclosed mouse trap is mice entering the lid-shaped container via the connector.
Deibert, cited by Applicant and like prior art above, teaches an animal trap (title, disclosure) further comprising a tunnel-shaped bridge leading to the entrance of the device (7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the entrance (5) of Pinder with a tunnel as taught by Deibert, in order to provide a more hidden structure, appealing to rodents and other vermin, and yielding predictable results.
Schreck, like prior art above, teaches an animal trap (title, disclosure), Each of short tunnel-shaped entrances is fitted with a one-way swing door (25, 26, as discussed page 1, line 107-page 2, line 26). Each of the short tunnel-shaped entrances fitted with the one-way swing door is called a connector of the lid-shaped container (the swing door of Schreck is called a connector). Each tunnel-shaped bridge has the same one-way swing door fitted within its tunnel-shaped structure (Figs. 1-2). One-way swing doors in the tunnel-shaped bridges (Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify each of the entrance of Pinder and tunnel of Deibert with the one-way swing door as taught by Schreck, in order to ensure the entrapment of the targeted animal, yielding predictable results.
The above-modified reference renders obvious The lid-shaped container has one or two connectors (the swing door of Schreck in the combination with Pinder). Each connector of the lid-shaped container is fitted with the one-way swing door (as modified above). The one-way swing door in each of the connectors provides one-way entrance for mice to enter the lid-shaped container which has baits within (as modified above). Each connector of the lid-shaped container connects with a tunnel-shaped bridge (as modified above).
Zeittler, like prior art above, teaches an animal trap (title, disclosure) An outer container (20) has three tunnel-shaped entrances (21, Fig. 1) each fitted with one-way swing door (Fig. 1). Each one-way swing door in the tunnel-shaped entrances of the outer container (Fig. 1), and the connectors allows mice to enter each stage of traps (Fig. 1). The first stage of the enclosed mouse trap is mice entering the inside of the outer container via going through one of the three tunnel-shaped entrances fitted on three side walls of the outer container (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the trap of Pinder with the outer container further including tunnel entrances and one-way swing doors as taught by Zeittler in order to provide a torturous maze configuration which is well known to hide the trap and provide a more intriguing structure for prey, yielding predictable results.
The above-modified reference renders obvious At the same time, each of the same one-way swing doors prevents mice from escaping each corresponding stage of traps (in the normal usage of any one-way swing door). The second stage of the enclosed mouse trap is the mice getting in and going up the tunnel-shaped bridge (tunnel bridge of Schreck) from the atrium of the outer container (outer container of Zeittler). The third stage of the enclosed mouse trap is mice entering the lid-shaped container via the connector (as modified above).
For Claim 2, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and Pinder further discloses wherein the lid-shaped container has two side walls; the internal side wall and the outer side wall (repetitious of claim 1). The internal side wall is located along the floor of the lid-shaped container (the frame outlines the space where floor 11 passes through) outlining the fitting space for one or two planks with fulcrum (the false floor 7). The internal side wall starts from the connector of the lid-shaped container to the distal ends of planks (the frame of the lid container holds plank 11 in place, and fully encompasses the plank). The height of the internal side wall extends from the floor to the roof of the lid-shaped container (in the same manner as the instant invention, the side wall of claim 1 is the floor of the lid container). The internal side wall is designed to guide mice to walk on the plank after mice emerge from the connector of the lid-shaped container (Fig. 1). The outer walls are comprised of the removable roof, the floor, and the outer side wall (the entire container can be removed from the top of the bucket). The outer side wall has one or two short tunnel-shaped entrances each fitted with one-way swing door (as modified above); the connector(s). The floor of the lid-shaped container has one or two planks with fulcrum fitted on the floor (repetitiously of claim 1).
For Claim 3, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and Pinder further discloses wherein the lid-shaped container having the internal side wall and the outer side wall configurations to be round, rectangular (Fig. 1), or4 square shaped. There is one or two short tunnel-shaped entrances between the internal side wall and the outer side wall of the lid-shaped container (repetitious of and addressed in claim 1). The short tunnel-shaped entrance fitted with the one-way swing door is called the connector of the lid-shaped container (repetitious of and addressed in claim 1). Each connector is fitted with the one-way swing door (repetitious of and addressed in claim 1). Each connector is an entrance port for mice to enter into the lid-shaped container (repetitious of and addressed in claim 1). Each connector of the lid-shaped container connects with the tunnel-shaped bridge (repetitious of and addressed in claim 1). Therefore, mice can get into the lid-shaped container via going through the inside of the tunnel-shaped bridge(s) and then the connector (repetitious of and addressed in claim 1).
For Claim 4, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, Pinder further discloses wherein the lid-shaped container fitted with plank having a step-like features (a step like feature is the portion of the plank which engages the retention means 21). The step-like features of plank provide improved sealing effects between the gaps along the floor of the lid-shaped container and the plank (the flat portion of the step allows it to sit against the retaining means 21 and be used in the manner discussed in ¶0035). The wider step-like feature compare to the plank is located lower surface of the plank pivoting downward anterior to the fulcrum (Fig. 1) while the wider step-like feature compare to the plank is located upper surface of plank pivoting upward posterior to the fulcrum (see above 112b rejection).
For Claim 5, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and Pinder further discloses wherein the floor of the lid- shaped container having a compartment underneath the floor for the storage of baking powder (“separate container” ¶0040).
For Claim 6, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and Pinder further discloses wherein the lid-shaped container has optional5 clear plastic parts along the roof of the container including the connectors. The floor of the lid-shaped container between the internal side wall and the outer side wall has optional clear plastic parts. The optional clear parts help a person to see the contents below without removing the lid-shaped container [due to the optional claim limitations, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of each limitation is opting out of the limitation.].
For Claim 7, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and Pinder further discloses wherein the lid-shaped container is adapted to fit on a bucket container (repetitious of and addressed in claim 1). In addition, the lid-shaped container can be used with an optional6 size-adaptor plate. The size-adaptor plate enables the same lid-shaped container to fit over various sized bucket containers [the BRI of this limitation is opting out].
For Claim 8, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and Pinder further discloses wherein the lid-shaped container has a bait storage area along the floor distal to the distal end of plank ¶0034.
For Claim 9, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and the combination further teaches wherein the lid-shaped container has the one-way swing door built-in within the short tunnel-shaped entrance (as modified above, repetitious of and addressed in claim 1). The short tunnel-shaped entrance or structure fitted with the one-way swing door is called the connector of the lid-shaped container (repetitious of and addressed in claim 1). The one-way swing door is a simple mechanical swing door (as seen in Schreck). The simple mechanical one-way swing door has two components; a main body and a pair of cylindrical tabs (25). Each tab has a cylindrical structure which helps to pivot at its axis while suspended within the walls of the tunnel-shaped structure (Fig. 2-3 of Schreck). The body of the swing door has similar shape to the cross-sectional area of the tunnel- shaped structure (Figs. 2-3 of Schreck). The swing door is designed to cover the most of the cross-sectional areas of the tunnel-shaped structure (Figs. 2-3 of Schreck). There are two ways of setting up the one-way swing doors depending on the types of tunnel-shaped entrance or structure used. If the tunnel-shaped entrance or structure has a step-like or bump-like features within its wall (not selected), then the swing door is placed directly against the step-like or bump-like features within the tunnel wall. The above set up allows the swing door to open in one direction only when mice pushes it as mice advance. At the same time the same set up would prevent mice from pushing the door swing open in the opposite direction because the door would not swing open due to the step-like or bump-like features within the tunnel walls. If the tunnel-shaped entrance or structure has no bump or step-like features within the wall (selected), then the swing door is set at an angle within the tunnel-shaped entrance or structure (Figs. 2-3 of Schreck), and the lower edges of the swing door rests on the internal surface of the tunnel- shaped entrance or structure (Fig. 1). This way of set up also allows the swing door to open in one direction only when mice push it as mice advance (Fig. 1). At the same time this setup would prevent mice from pushing the door swing open in the opposite direction (Fig. 1 and in the natural usage of a swing door). Therefore, both ways of setting up the swing doors within the tunnel-shaped entrance or the tunnel-shaped structure would prevent mice from escaping the trap while allowing mice to advance to next stages of traps (as discussed above).
Pinder as modified above is silent to The short tunnel-shaped entrance or structure has a pair of holes on the tunnel walls providing the fitting space for the pair of cylindrical tabs of the swing door.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify each tunnel upon which a swing door is hung in the above-modified reference with holes to suspend each door from, since the Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of holes for supporting swing doors from a structure are exceedingly well-known in the art, in order to provide sufficient support and movement for the device to work as intended, and yielding predictable results.
For Claim 10, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and the combination further renders obvious wherein the tunnel-like structure or the entrance of the tunnel-shaped bridge has the following features. The tunnel-shaped bridge has the same swing door of claim 9 and has the same settings of swing door of claim 9. In other words, the tunnel-shaped bridge has the same one-way swing door and the same setup within its entrance or tunnel-shaped structure as the connector of the lid-shaped container [note the above rejections of claims 1 & 9].
For Claim 12, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and Pinder further discloses wherein the tunnel-shaped bridge having optional7 clear plastic parts along its structure. This would enable a person to see the inside of the tunnel-shaped structure, the tunnel-shaped bridge [the BRI of the limitation is opting out.].
For Claim 13, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and Pinder further discloses wherein the outer container having one entrance each on three side walls of the outer container (repetitious of and addressed in claim 1). Each entrance of the outer container has a tunnel-shaped structure which has the same one-way swing door built-in within the tunnel-shaped structure as described of claim 9. Each swing door within the tunnel-shaped structure or entrance has set up in a way it opens in one-direction only as described of claim 9. Each swing door has been positioned at an angle or positioned against the internal wall structure in a way which opens only in one directions as described of claim 9 [note the above rejections of claims 1 & 9].
For Claim 14, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1, and Pinder further discloses wherein the lid of outer container has optional features8 of two ways of opening the lid; partial opening of lid along the folding line of lid or opening the whole lid off. The lid has optional clear plastic parts so that a person may able to see the inside of the outer container without opening the lid [the BRI of the limitation is opting out].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinder as modified above as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boyer (US 1506045 A).
For Claim 11, Pinder as modified above teaches the enclosed mouse trap container according to claim 1.
Pinder as modified above is silent to wherein the tunnel-shaped bridge has a distal end which has a broad entrance at the ground level with graduated tapering configuration at the base of entrance.
Boyer, like prior art above, teaches an animal trap (title, disclosure) and further teaches a tapering along the length of tunnel (10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify each tunnel of Pinder as modified above with a tapering length as taught by Boyer, such that at least one of the tunnels extends down to ground level, in order to provide an additional feature which causes the animal(s) to be less capable of escaping, yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 6938368 B2, US 20160143262 A1, US 20140352199 A1, US 8205377 B1, US 20110138677 A1, US 20060026893 A1, US 6272789 B1, US 4748766 A, US 1516312 A, US 1055890 A, US 0657291 A, US 1597434 A as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention. The remaining references cited establish the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
2 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
3 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
4 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
5 Interpretation note: since this element is optional, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation is opting out. If any claim mapping is provided, it is in the spirit of compact prosecution.
6 Interpretation note: since this element is optional, the BRI of the limitation is opting out. If any claim mapping is provided, it is in the spirit of compact prosecution.
7 Interpretation note: since this element is optional, the BRI of the limitation is opting out. If any claim mapping is provided, it is in the spirit of compact prosecution.
8 Interpretation note: since this element is optional, the BRI of the limitation is opting out. If any claim mapping is provided, it is in the spirit of compact prosecution.