DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 3 February 2025.
Claims 11 – 20 are pending. Claims 1 – 10 are cancelled by Applicant.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3 February 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“a … controlled motor” – claim 19
“a … control and management unit” – claim 19.
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
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pg. 8, ll. 14 – 15, the element, “the at least one heat-sealing plate 7, 8”, should read, “the at least one heat-sealing plate 7, 9”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, 37 CFR 1.75(i) states ‘[w]here a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.” However, independent claim 11 uses both line indentations and dashes to separate the elements of the claim wherein the dashes are redundant and unnecessary. The dashes should be removed.
Regarding claim 11, lines 6 – 7, the limitation, “which said tubular portion of flaps of packaging sheets protrudes”, should read, “which the flaps of the packaging sheets of the at least one tubular portion protrude”.
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.
Claims 11 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, lines 1 – 4, the limitation, “an assembly for folding and heat-sealing at least one flap of packaging sheets juxtaposed against surfaces of a product, in particular of at least one tubular portion constituted by flaps of packaging sheets which protrude with respect to opposite fronts of the product arranged on a conveyance line”, is indefinite because examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. That is, the limitation, “in particular of at least one tubular portion constituted by flaps of packaging sheets which protrude with respect to opposite fronts of the product arranged on a conveyance line”, is a preference wherein the limitation is ambiguous whether the limitation requires an assembly for folding and heat-sealing at least one flap of packaging sheets juxtaposed against surfaces of a product or the limitation requires an assembly for folding and heat-sealing at least one flap of packaging sheets juxtaposed against surfaces of at least one tubular portion constituted by flaps of packaging sheets which protrude with respect to opposite fronts of a product arranged on a conveyance line. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “an assembly for folding and heat-sealing at least one flap of packaging sheets juxtaposed against surfaces of at least one tubular portion constituted by flaps of packaging sheets which protrude with respect to opposite fronts of a product arranged on a conveyance line”. Please note, since claims 12 – 19 depend upon claim 11, claims 12 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11, line 7, the limitation, “said folding plate”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one folding plate”, recites one or more folding plates while the limitation, “said folding plate”, recites only one folding plate, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more folding plates or only one folding plate. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one folding plate”. Please note, since claims 12 – 19 depend upon claim 11, claims 12 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11, line 8, the limitation, “said tubular portion”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one tubular portion”, recites one or more tubular portions while the limitation, “said tubular portion”, recites only one tubular portion, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more tubular portions or only one tubular portion. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one tubular portion”. Please note, since claims 12 – 19 depend upon claim 11, claims 12 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11, line 9, the limitation, “said folding plate”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one folding plate”, recites one or more folding plates while the limitation, “said folding plate”, recites only one folding plate, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more folding plates or only one folding plate. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one folding plate”. Please note, since claims 12 – 19 depend upon claim 11, claims 12 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11, lines 9 – 10, the limitation, “said tubular portion”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one tubular portion”, recites one or more tubular portions while the limitation, “said tubular portion”, recites only one tubular portion, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more tubular portions or only one tubular portion. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one tubular portion”. Please note, since claims 12 – 19 depend upon claim 11, claims 12 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11, line 10, the limitation, “it”, is indefinite because the term “it” is a pronoun that refers to an element previously recited and it is ambiguous as written in the claim as to the antecedent basis of the pronoun or, in other words, what element the term “it” refers. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “it”, to mean “the lateral end”. Please note, since claims 12 – 19 depend upon claim 11, claims 12 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11, line 12, the limitation, “said tubular portion”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one tubular portion”, recites one or more tubular portions while the limitation, “said tubular portion”, recites only one tubular portion, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more tubular portions or only one tubular portion. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one tubular portion”. Please note, since claims 12 – 19 depend upon claim 11, claims 12 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11, lines 12 – 13, the limitation, “said heat-sealing block”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one heat-sealing block”, recites one or more heat-sealing blocks while the limitation, “said heat-sealing block”, recites only one heat-sealing block, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more heat-sealing blocks or only one heat-sealing block. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one heat-sealing block”. Please note, since claims 12 – 19 depend upon claim 11, claims 12 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11, lines 13 – 14, the limitation, “said heat-sealing block”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one heat-sealing block”, recites one or more heat-sealing blocks while the limitation, “said heat-sealing block”, recites only one heat-sealing block, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more heat-sealing blocks or only one heat-sealing block. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one heat-sealing block”. Please note, since claims 12 – 19 depend upon claim 11, claims 12 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 11, lines 14 – 15, the limitation, “said folding bar”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one folding bar”, recites one or more folding bars while the limitation, “said folding bar”, recites only one folding bar, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more folding bars or only one folding bar. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one folding bar”. Please note, since claims 12 – 19 depend upon claim 11, claims 12 – 19 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 12, line 1, the limitation, “said folding station comprises two folding bars”, is indefinite because it ambiguous whether the limitation refers to the previously recited limitation, “at least one folding bar”, in claim 11 or the limitation refers to two new folding bars. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “said folding station comprises two folding bars”, to mean “said at least one folding bar comprises two folding bars”. Please note, since claim 13 depend upon claim 12, claim 13 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 12, line 2, the limitation, “said folding plate”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one folding plate”, recites one or more folding plates while the limitation, “said folding plate”, recites only one folding plate, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more folding plates or only one folding plate. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one folding plate”. Please note, since claim 13 depend upon claim 12, claim 13 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 12, line 3, the limitation, “said tubular portion”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one tubular portion”, recites one or more tubular portions while the limitation, “said tubular portion”, recites only one tubular portion, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more tubular portions or only one tubular portion. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one tubular portion”. Please note, since claim 13 depend upon claim 12, claim 13 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 12, line 3, the limitation, “them”, is indefinite because the term “them” is a pronoun that refers to an element previously recited and it is ambiguous as written in the claim as to the antecedent basis of the pronoun or, in other words, what element the term “them” refers. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “them”, to mean “the lateral ends”. Please note, since claim 13 depend upon claim 12, claim 13 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 13, line 1, the limitation, “said heat-sealing blocks”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one heat-sealing block”, recites one or more heat-sealing blocks while the limitation, “said heat-sealing blocks”, recites a plurality of heat-sealing blocks, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more heat-sealing blocks or the plurality of heat-sealing blocks. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “said heat-sealing blocks are two in number and can move”, to mean “said at least one heat-sealing block comprises two heat-sealing blocks wherein said heat-sealing blocks can move”.
Regarding claim 13, line 3, the limitation, “said tubular portion”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one tubular portion”, recites one or more tubular portions while the limitation, “said tubular portion”, recites only one tubular portion, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more tubular portions or only one tubular portion. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one tubular portion”.
Regarding claim 13, line 5, the limitation, “said lateral ends”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “a respective lateral end”, recites only one lateral end while the limitation, “said lateral ends”, recites a plurality of lateral ends, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to only one lateral end or the plurality of lateral ends. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said lateral end”.
Regarding claim 14, line 2, the limitation, “said tubular portion”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one tubular portion”, recites one or more tubular portions while the limitation, “said tubular portion”, recites only one tubular portion, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more tubular portions or only one tubular portion. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “against said tubular portion of said packaging sheets which protrudes from mutually opposite fronts of each product”, to mean “against said surfaces of said at least one tubular portion constituted by the flaps of packaging sheets which protrude from mutually opposite fronts of each product”.
Regarding claim 14, line 4, the limitation, “said plate”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one folding plate”, recites one or more folding plates while the limitation, “said plate”, recites only one folding plate, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more folding plates or only one folding plate. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one folding plate”. Please note, since claim 13 depend upon claim 12, claim 13 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 15, line 1, the limitation, “said heat-sealing plates”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one heat-sealing plate”, recites one or more heat-sealing plates while the limitation, “said heat-sealing plates”, recites a plurality of heat-sealing plates, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more heat-sealing plates or the plurality of heat-sealing plates. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “said heat-sealing blocks are two in number, arranged along said conveyance line in succession”, to mean “said at least one heat-sealing plate comprises two heat-sealing plates wherein the heat-sealing plates are arranged along said conveyance line in succession”. Please note, since claim 16 depends upon claim 15, claim 16 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 18, line 2, the limitation, “said heat-sealing plate”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one heat-sealing plate”, recites one or more heat-sealing plates while the limitation, “said heat-sealing plate”, recites only one heat-sealing plate, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more heat-sealing plates or only one heat-sealing plate. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one heat-sealing plate”.
Regarding claim 18, line 3, the limitation, “said lateral abutment band”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one lateral abutment band”, recites one or more lateral abutment bands while the limitation, “said lateral abutment band”, recites only one lateral abutment band, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more lateral abutment bands or only one lateral abutment band. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one lateral abutment band”.
Regarding claim 18, line 4, the limitation, “said abutment band”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one lateral abutment band”, recites one or more lateral abutment bands while the limitation, “said abutment band”, recites only one lateral abutment band, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more lateral abutment bands or only one lateral abutment band. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one lateral abutment band”.
Regarding claim 18, line 5, the limitation, “said tubular portion”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one tubular portion”, recites one or more tubular portions while the limitation, “said tubular portion”, recites only one tubular portion, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more tubular portions or only one tubular portion. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one tubular portion”.
Regarding claim 18, line 6, the limitation, “said heat-sealing blocks”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one heat-sealing block”, recites one or more heat-sealing blocks while the limitation, “said heat-sealing blocks”, recites a plurality of heat-sealing blocks, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more heat-sealing blocks or the plurality of heat-sealing blocks. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said at least one heat-sealing block”.
Regarding claim 19, lines 3 – 4, the limitation, “a respective controlled motor, of the type of a brushless motor, a servomotor and the like”, is indefinite because the phrases “of the type” and "and the like" includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by “of the type” and "and the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “a respective controlled motor”.
Regarding claim 19, line 4, the limitation, “said at least one controlled motor”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “a respective controlled motor”, recites only one controlled motor while the limitation, “said at least one controlled motor”, recites one or more controlled motors, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more controlled motors or only one controlled motor. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “said controlled motor”.
Regarding claim 20, 37 CFR 1.75(e) states independent claim should contain a preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known, a transitional phrase, and then those elements, steps, and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion. In the instant case, independent claim 20 does not define a preamble and it is ambiguous what parts of the claim are the general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known and what parts of the claim are those elements, steps, and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion. The examiner respectfully suggests the following changes:
A plant for covering products by means of packaging sheets
a conveyance line for said products and at least one supply line of said sheets, said conveyance line being operated on by an apparatus for wrapping and closing at least one sheet in a tube on each product, and
further comprising, downstream of said apparatus, at least one assembly according to claim 11 for folding and heat-sealing at least one tubular portion which is constituted by flaps of packaging sheets which protrude with respect to opposite fronts of the product
Regarding claim 20, line 1, the limitation, “by means of packaging sheets of the type”, is indefinite because the phrase "of the type" includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "of the type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean “by means of packaging sheets”.
Regarding claim 20, line 6 – 7, the limitation, “said assembly being of the type according to claim 11”, is indefinite because the phrase "of the type" includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "of the type"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally, the limitation, “said assembly”, is indefinite because the antecedent basis for the limitation, “at least one assembly”, recites one or more assemblies while the limitation, “said assembly”, recites only one assembly, thus it is ambiguous whether the limitation refers to one or more assemblies or only one assembly. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “at least one assembly for folding and heat-sealing at least one tubular portion which is constituted by flaps of packaging sheets which protrude with respect to opposite fronts of the product, said assembly being of the type according to claim 11”, to mean “at least one assembly according to claim 11 for folding and heat-sealing at least one tubular portion which is constituted by flaps of packaging sheets which protrude with respect to opposite fronts of the product”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claims 11 and 20, the subject matter of the assembly is allowable over the prior art because of the arrangement of the combination of structural limitations set forth in the claim and their functional relationship to one another. Dependent claims 12 – 19 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 11.
Claim 11 includes the following limitations which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 11, are what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 11 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art:
“at least one heat-sealing block, of shape and dimensions that are complementary to those of said lateral end of said [at least one] tubular portion and movable between a passive configuration, in which the [at least one] heat-sealing block is spaced apart from said lateral end, and an active configuration, in which the [at least one] heat-sealing block abuts against said lateral end, following a release of said lateral end by said [at least one] folding bar”
The closest prior art is Olson (US 2,783,60 A). Olson discloses at least one heat-sealing block (102, 130) ; however, the least one heat-sealing block is stationary and does not move from a passive configuration, in which the at least one heat-sealing block is spaced apart from said lateral end, and an active configuration, in which the at least one heat-sealing block abuts against said lateral end, following a release of said lateral end by said at least one folding bar – as required by the claimed limitation. Instead, the product having the at least one tubular portion is conveyed to the stationary heat-sealing block. While the movable heat-sealing block of the claimed subject matter is found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
13 December 2025