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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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 is less than 50 words and fails to describe what is new in the art to which the invention pertains. 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 13-16 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, lines 2-3 recite “said harvesting device comprising a support to which at least one support structure of the fruits M;”, should read – said harvesting device comprising a support comprising at least one support structure for the fruits M; --.
Claim 14, lines 1-2 recite “wherein at least one bulkhead is comprised,”, should read – further comprising at least one bulkhead, --.
Claim 15, line 1 recites “wherein is included a wall”, should read – wherein a wall is –.
Claim 16, lines 1-2 recite “wherein separating means for separating the fruits M from the plants to the at least one support structure are included.” should read – wherein separating means, for separating the fruits M from the plants, are included to the at least one support structure --.
Claim 21, line 2 recites “the support structure”, should read – the at least one support structure – as set forth in claim 13.
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 13-27 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.
Claim 13, lines 4-5 recite “said sticks being suitable for being inserted between the plants of the row F below the fruits M so as to support said fruits M.”. However, it is unclear how the sticks are inserted between the plants of the row while still being inserted below the fruits. Specifically, the fruits are located within the plant forming the row; therefore, if the sticks are inserted between the plants of the row then they are not inserted within the plant but between it. This is further supported by applicants specification, page 7, lines 5-6, “Specifically, the outer portions 24 of some sticks 20 fit inside the F row itself, sandwiching between the M apples, as also visible in figure 1.” Therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “said sticks being suitable for being inserted within the plants of the row F below the fruits M so as to support said fruits M.”
Due to dependency on claim 13, claims 14-27 are rejected as well.
Claim 14 in line 3 sets forth “a harvesting device”. However, it is unclear how this harvesting device is related to the harvesting device set forth in dependent claim 13, line 1. Specifically, it is unclear if these two portions are one and the same or two different portions altogether. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to be the same limitation as set forth in claim 13.
Claim 22, lines 1-2 recites “wherein the support comprises a rotatable tubular element to which is attached at least one radiating element comprising sticks”, but is dependent on claim 13 that sets forth in line 3 “at least one support structure comprising sticks;”. It is unclear if there are two limitations, the at least one radiating element and the at least one support structure, comprising sticks and therefore the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this to mean “wherein the at least one support structure comprises a rotatable tubular element to which is attached at least one radiating element comprising sticks”.
Claim 25 recites the same limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the support comprises a first driving drum and a second idler drum around which is arranged a belt to which sticks are attached”, but is dependent on claim 13 that sets forth in line 3 “at least one support structure comprising sticks;”. It is unclear if there are two limitations, the belt and the at least one support structure, comprising sticks and therefore the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this to mean “wherein the at least one support structure comprises a first driving drum and a second idler drum around which is arranged a belt to which sticks are attached”.
Claim 26 recites the same limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 24, lines 1-2 recite “wherein the support comprises a movable belt” and later in lines 2-3 recite “at least two collection structures each comprising a support connecting to the movable belt”. It is unclear how the support comprises a movable belt and is connected to the movable belt. Specifically, if the support is comprised of a movable belt, then it cannot be connected to the movable belt it is comprised of; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 27 recites the same limitation and is rejected for the same reason.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “the support comprises a movable belt, and at least two harvesting devices (see 112(b) rejection below) each comprising a support comprised of the movable belt.”
Claim 24, lines 2-3 recite “at least two collection structures each comprising a support connecting to the movable belt”. However, it is unclear if the collection structures are the same as the harvesting device also comprising a support as set forth in claim 13, or a different limitation altogether. Further, it is unclear if the two collection structures are each applicable to a separate harvesting vehicle or if they are applied to the same harvesting vehicle; therefore, the claim is rejected for being indefinite.
Claim 27 recites the same limitation and is rejected for the same reasons.
For the purpose of the examination, the examiner is interpreting the limitation of “at least two collection structures” to mean at least two harvesting devices each applied to their own harvesting vehicle, similar to Applicant’s Fig. 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 13, 15-16, 18-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thorn et al. (US 3404521 A).
Regarding claim 13, Thorn et al. teaches a harvesting device [18] of fruits, applicable to a harvesting vehicle [1] capable of moving along a row of fruit plants (capable of moving along a row of plants through use of wheels on vehicle, see Fig. 1), said harvesting device comprising a support [11] to which at least one support structure [32] of the fruits;
said at least one support structure comprising sticks ([35], see Col. 3, lines 37-40);
said sticks being suitable for being inserted within the plants of the row below the fruits so as to support said fruits (inserted within the plant and below the fruit to collect fruit, see Figs. 8 and 10) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 15, Thorn et al. teaches wherein is included a wall [29] adapted to prevent fruits from falling (prevents fruits from falling backwards, see Figs. 8 and 10) from the at least one support structure [32].
Regarding claim 16, Thorn et al. teaches wherein separating means (vibrating means, see Col. 3, lines 47-49) for separating the fruits from the plants to the at least one support structure ([32]; vibration occurs on sticks [35] connected to the support structure) are included.
Regarding claim 18, Thorn et al. teaches wherein the separating means (vibrating means, see Col. 3, lines 47-49) comprise means for swinging said sticks [35] so that said sticks are moved in a vertical direction (vibrate about pin [38] and therefore swing in a vertical direction, see Col. 3, lines 47-49 and Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 19, Thorn et al. teaches wherein the separating means (vibrating means, see Col. 3, lines 47-49) comprise vibratory devices (separating means are vibratory devices) for selectively shaking the plants (shakes the sticks [35] and therefore the plant touching the sticks, see Col. 3, lines 63-75 and Col. 4, lines 1-2) or gripping devices for selectively grasping the fruits.
Regarding claim 21, Thorn et al. teaches wherein the support [11] is movable (movable through connection to vehicle [1], see Fig. 1) so as to move the support structure [32] with respect to the plants of the row (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Thorn et al. teaches wherein the support structure [32] comprises a rotatable tubular element (support structure is a rotatable tubular member, see Col. 3, lines 32-40) to which is attached at least one radiating element comprising sticks [35] arranged in a radial pattern (see Figs. 5-6 and 8) and constrained to the tubular element (see Col. 3, lines 32-40) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn et al. (US 3404521 A) in view of Haines (US 3968631 A).
Regarding claim 14, Thorn et al. discloses the harvesting device as applied above, as well as a harvesting device [18], but fails to disclose wherein at least one bulkhead is comprised, said bulkhead is adapted to lead the fruits from the at least one support structure into a harvesting device (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Haines discloses a similar harvesting device [10] comprising at least one bulkhead ([69], one on either side, see Fig. 4) is comprised, said bulkhead is adapted to lead the fruits (see Col. 3, lines 21-24) from the at least one support structure [56] into the harvesting device (guides fruit into housing [24] of the harvesting device [10], see Fig. 5 and Col. 4, lines 58-63).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the at least one bulkhead of Haines on the harvesting device of Thorn et al. in order to guide the fruit into the housing, preventing the fruit from rolling off the sides and out of the harvesting device (see Haines Col. 3, lines 21-24).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn et al. (US 3404521 A) in view of Salisbury et al. (US 11272662 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Thorn et al. discloses the harvesting device as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the separating means are connected to an artificial intelligence system and/or an intelligent vision system so as to select the fruits M to be detached from the plants.
Salisbury et al. discloses a similar harvesting device (see Fig. 42) wherein the separating means (vacuum-based end-effectors, see Col. 14, lines 50-67) are connected to an artificial intelligence system and/or an intelligent vision system (see Col. 14, lines 4-14) so as to select the fruits to be detached from the plants (selects the fruits to be detached through object recognition, see Col. 14, lines 4-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the intelligent vision system of Salisbury et al. on the harvesting device of Thorn et al. in order to utilize a system that processes images of the plants to compute object recognition and the location of the fruits to position the separating means near the fruits as disclosed by Salisbury et al. (see Col. 14, lines 4-14).
Claim(s) 20 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn et al. (US 3404521 A) in view of Palm (US 8635845 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Thorn et al. discloses the harvesting device as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein said sticks comprise bristles.
Palm discloses a similar harvesting device (see Fig. 1) wherein said sticks [101] comprise bristles (see Col. 7, lines 43-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the sticks of Thorn et al. with the bristles of Palm since both are used for harvesting fruit from a plant; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Regarding claim 25, Thorn et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses the support structure [32] comprises a rotatable tubular element (support structure is a rotatable tubular member, see Col. 3, lines 32-40) to which is attached at least one radiating element comprising sticks [35] arranged in a radial pattern (see Figs. 5-6 and 8) and constrained to the tubular element (see Col. 3, lines 32-40) (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn et al. (US 3404521 A) in view of Antwerp et al. (US 3413787 A) and Shaw (US 4261163 A).
Regarding claim 23, Thorn et al. discloses the harvesting device as applied above, as well as the at least one support structure [32] comprises a first driving gear ([36], see Col. 3, lines 41-46) that drives the rotation of the sticks [35], but fails to disclose wherein the support comprises a first driving drum and a second idler drum around which is arranged a belt to which sticks are attached (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Antwerp et al. discloses a similar harvesting device [9] wherein the at least one support structure (belt [65] is the support structure, supporting the sticks [67] for harvesting the fruit) comprises a first driving sprocket ([57], see Col. 3, lines 48-57) and a second idler drum ([68], see Col. 3, lines 67-68) around which is arranged a belt ([65], see Col. 3, lines 59-63) to which sticks ([67], see Col. 3, lines 63-66) are attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the at least one support structure of Thorn et al. with the at least one support structure of Antwerp et al. since both are support structures for rotating the sticks to remove fruit from the plant; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
But Antwerp et al. fails to disclose the belt is driven by a first driving drum and a second idler drum.
However, Shaw discloses a similar harvesting device (see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, lines 19-23) comprising a first driving drum ([27]; see Col. 5, lines 14-16) and a second idler drum ([26], see Col. 5, lines 11-14) around which is arranged a belt [22] to which sticks [24] are attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the driving and idle gear of Antwerp et al. with the driving and idle drum of Shaw since both are mechanisms used for driving a belt for rotation; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn et al. (US 3404521 A), Antwerp et al. (US 3413787 A) and Shaw (US 4261163 A) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Hobhouse (US 4722175 A).
Regarding claim 24, Antwerp discloses the harvesting device as applied above, as well as, wherein the at least one support structure (belt [65] is the support structure, supporting the sticks [67] for harvesting the fruit) comprises a movable belt ([65], see Col. 3, lines 59-63) moved by a first driving sprocket ([57], see Col. 3, lines 48-57) and a second idler drum ([68], see Col. 3, lines 67-68), and sticks ([67], see Col. 3, lines 63-66) attached to said support (please see 112(b) rejection above).
But Antwerp et al. fails to disclose the movable belt moved by at least three drums, and at least two harvesting devices each comprising a support comprised of the movable belt.
However, Shaw discloses a similar harvesting device (see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, lines 19-23) comprising a first driving drum ([27]; see Col. 5, lines 14-16) and a second idler drum ([26], see Col. 5, lines 11-14) around which is arranged a belt [22] to which sticks [24] are attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the driving and idle gear of Antwerp et al. with the driving and idle drum of Shaw since both are mechanisms used for driving a belt for rotation; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
But Shaw fails to disclose at least three drums, and at least two harvesting devices each comprising a support comprised of the movable belt.
Hobhouse discloses a similar harvesting device (see Fig. 1) wherein the support (belt [10] is the support structure, picks up the vegetation, see Fig. 1) is comprised of a movable belt [10] moved by at least three drums ([14, 16, and 22]; [14 and 16] are the drive and idle drums, while [22] are guide drums, see Col. 2, lines 32-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one guide roller of Hobhouse on the movable belt of Thorn et al., Antwerp et al., and Shaw in order to provide the middle of the movable belt with a guide roller to ensure the belt keeps its form (see Hobhouse Col. 2, lines 32-36 and Fig. 1). It can be seen then that, when one guide roller of Hobhouse is applied to the harvesting device of Thorn et al., Antwerp et al., and Shaw, the belt is moved by at least three drums.
But Hobhouse fails to disclose at least two harvesting devices each comprising a support comprised of the movable belt.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use at least two harvesting devices as disclosed by Thorn et al., Antwerp et al., Shaw, and Hobhouse, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bermis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize multiple harvesting devices for harvesting fruits within a large row of plants.
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn et al. (US 3404521 A) and Palm (US 8635845 B1) as applied to claims 20 and 25 above, and further in view of Antwerp et al. (US 3413787 A) and Shaw (US 4261163 A).
Regarding claim 26, Thorn et al. discloses the harvesting device as applied above, as well as the at least one support structure [32] comprises a first driving gear ([36], see Col. 3, lines 41-46) that drives the rotation of the sticks [35], but fails to disclose wherein the support comprises a first driving drum and a second idler drum around which is arranged a belt to which sticks are attached (please see 112(b) rejection above).
Antwerp et al. discloses a similar harvesting device [9] wherein the at least one support structure (belt [65] is the support structure, supporting the sticks [67] for harvesting the fruit) comprises a first driving sprocket ([57], see Col. 3, lines 48-57) and a second idler drum ([68], see Col. 3, lines 67-68) around which is arranged a belt ([65], see Col. 3, lines 59-63) to which sticks ([67], see Col. 3, lines 63-66) are attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the at least one support structure of Thorn et al. with the at least one support structure of Antwerp et al. since both are support structures for rotating the sticks to remove fruit from the plant; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
But Antwerp et al. fails to disclose the belt is driven by a first driving drum and a second idler drum.
However, Shaw discloses a similar harvesting device (see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, lines 19-23) comprising a first driving drum ([27]; see Col. 5, lines 14-16) and a second idler drum ([26], see Col. 5, lines 11-14) around which is arranged a belt [22] to which sticks [24] are attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the driving and idle gear of Antwerp et al. with the driving and idle drum of Shaw since both are mechanisms used for driving a belt for rotation; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn et al. (US 3404521 A), Palm (US 8635845 B1), Antwerp et al. (US 3413787 A) and Shaw (US 4261163 A) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Hobhouse (US 4722175 A).
Regarding claim 27, Antwerp discloses the harvesting device as applied above, as well as, wherein the at least one support structure (belt [65] is the support structure, supporting the sticks [67] for harvesting the fruit) comprises a movable belt ([65], see Col. 3, lines 59-63) moved by a first driving sprocket ([57], see Col. 3, lines 48-57) and a second idler drum ([68], see Col. 3, lines 67-68), and sticks ([67], see Col. 3, lines 63-66) attached to said support (please see 112(b) rejection above).
But Antwerp et al. fails to disclose the movable belt moved by at least three drums, and at least two harvesting devices each comprising a support comprised of the movable belt.
However, Shaw discloses a similar harvesting device (see Fig. 1 and Col. 5, lines 19-23) comprising a first driving drum ([27]; see Col. 5, lines 14-16) and a second idler drum ([26], see Col. 5, lines 11-14) around which is arranged a belt [22] to which sticks [24] are attached.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the driving and idle gear of Antwerp et al. with the driving and idle drum of Shaw since both are mechanisms used for driving a belt for rotation; therefore, yielding the same predictable result.
But Shaw fails to disclose at least three drums, and at least two harvesting devices each comprising a support comprised of the movable belt.
Hobhouse discloses a similar harvesting device (see Fig. 1) wherein the support (belt [10] is the support structure, picks up the vegetation, see Fig. 1) is comprised of a movable belt [10] moved by at least three drums ([14, 16, and 22]; [14 and 16] are the drive and idle drums, while [22] are guide drums, see Col. 2, lines 32-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide one guide roller of Hobhouse on the movable belt of Thorn et al., Antwerp et al., and Shaw in order to provide the middle of the movable belt with a guide roller to ensure the belt keeps its form (see Hobhouse Col. 2, lines 32-36 and Fig. 1). It can be seen then that, when one guide roller of Hobhouse is applied to the harvesting device of Thorn et al., Antwerp et al., and Shaw, the belt is moved by at least three drums.
But Hobhouse fails to disclose at least two harvesting devices each comprising a support comprised of the movable belt.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use at least two harvesting devices as disclosed by Thorn et al., Antwerp et al., Shaw, and Hobhouse, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bermis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize multiple harvesting devices for harvesting fruits within a large row of plants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached PTO-892 for the full list of references.
Reference US 5904034 A discloses a similar harvesting device (see Fig. 4) of fruits, comprising of sticks [43] inserted within the plant for support of the fruit (sticks are inserted within the plant and in contact with the fruit for removal from tree, see Col. 5, lines 5-10 and Col. 7, lines 15-18).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights