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
Claim(s) 1-14 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 7-13 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 objected to because of the following informalities:
For proper form and consistency in the claims (See e.g., claims 4-13 reciting “system according to claim 1” rather than “the photovoltaic system according to claim 1”), it is suggested that the claims be amended to read as follows:
1. A vertical photovoltaic system
- for each post, a primary securing means flexible tie,
- the first flexible tie being held taut between the two posts, and
- a fixing means photovoltaic module to the first flexible tie;
which also comprises:
- for each post flexible tie, and
- the second flexible tie being held taut between the two posts,
the first flexible tie and the second flexible tie being secured to two different parts of the photovoltaic module
2. The photovoltaic system flexible tie
3. The photovoltaic system
4. The photovoltaic system photovoltaic module
5. The photovoltaic system
6. The photovoltaic system according to claim 4, wherein a fixing means
7. The photovoltaic system
- at least a first tie
- at least two photovoltaic modules
- for each said module, a fixing mount
the fixing mount for fixing a module also comprises at least one opening
8. The photovoltaic system according to claim 1, wherein the fixing means
9. The photovoltaic system according to claim 1, wherein the fixing means
10. The photovoltaic system according to claim 1, wherein at least one fixing means
11. The photovoltaic system
12. The photovoltaic system
13. The photovoltaic system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the primary and secondary securing means
14. A method (500) for installing a cable-supported vertical photovoltaic system, characterised in that it comprises:
- a step (505) of positioning a first post, the first post being positioned vertically,
- a step (510) of fixing the first post in an installation ground,
- a step (515) of positioning a second post, the second post being positioned vertically,
- a step (520) of fixing the second post in an installation ground,
- a step (525) of placing under tension at least two flexible ties between the two posts, comprising:
- a step (530) of securing each said flexible tie to the first post,
- a step (535) of securing each said flexible tie to the second post, and
- a step (540) of fixing a photovoltaic module to said taut flexible tie,
the first tie and the second tie being secured to two different parts of the photovoltaic module.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1: primary securing means, fixing means, and secondary securing means.
In claim 9, adjustment means.
In claim 11, anchoring means.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Regarding claim 1
The recitation “Vertical photovoltaic system (100, 200, 300, 400, 600) renders the claim indefinite as it references multiple distinct embodiments. One of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain whether the claim is directed to any one of the recited embodiments, a generic system encompassing those embodiments, or a combination of features from those embodiments. It is noted that the dependent claims separately recite embodiments 100, 200, 300, 400 (claim 2) and 600 (claim 3), indicating that the embodiments are distinct. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be reasonably determined.
The limitations “the collaboration between the primary securing means applying longitudinal tension to the first tie” and “the collaboration between the secondary securing means applying longitudinal tension to the second tie” are unclear and therefore render the claim indefinite. It is unclear what structure or element is collaborating with the primary and secondary securing means to achieve the longitudinal tension to the first and second flexible ties. The recitation “the collaboration between” implies at least two structures; however, the claim only indicated a primary and secondary securing means, respectively, without identifying the additional structure with which each securing means collaborates to apply the longitudinal tension. Accordingly, the scope of the claim cannot be reasonably determined.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 3
The limitation “wherein the fixing means (125) traverses at least partially a first tie (123)” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the recited “first tie” in the instant claim corresponds to the “first flexible tie” recited in claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 4
The limitation “wherein the module (105) is rectangular and delimited by at least one side…” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The claim does not clearly identify the structure to which the recited side belongs. What is the module delimited by? The tie, a side of the module itself, or a side of another structure? One of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a fixing means for fixing the photovoltaic module to the tie.” However, claim 1, from which claim 5 depends already recites “a fixing means for fixing the photovoltaic module to the first tie.” Accordingly, it is not clear if the fixing means recited in the instant claim corresponds to that of claim 1.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 6
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a fixing means for fixing the photovoltaic module to the tie.” However, claim 1, from which claim 6 depends already recites “a fixing means for fixing the photovoltaic module to the first tie.” Accordingly, it is not clear if the fixing means recited in the instant claim corresponds to that of claim 1.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 7
The limitation “at least a first tie (120) and a second tie (121)” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the first and second tie recited in the instant claim corresponds to that in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends.
The limitation “a fixing mount” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the fixing mount recited in the instant claim corresponds to the fixing means recited in claim 1, from which claim 7 depends. As recited in claim 5, it appears the fixing means comprises a fixing mount. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10
The limitation “wherein at least one fixing means (125) comprises a fixing hook (131) or a fixing clamp (137)” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, recites a single fixing means. However, the instant claim is open to one or more. There is no prior recitation of more than one fixing means in the claims. Accordingly, the limitation lacks antecedent basis and is inconsistent with the claim from which it depends.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 11
The limitation “which also comprises at least one anchoring means (112) for anchoring at least one tie (120, 121) in an installation ground (101), the collaboration between said anchoring means and the securing means (115, 116) applies supplementary longitudinal tension to the tie,” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
It is not clear if the recited “at least one tie” corresponds to the first and second flexible ties recited in claim 1, from which claim 11 depends.
Furthermore, it is not clear to which of the primary securing means and the secondary securing means does the securing means recited in the instant claim corresponds to. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claim 12
The limitation “wherein at least one post (110, 111) comprises a said securing means (115, 116) for securing a tie (120, 121)” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear to which of the primary and/or secondary securing means does the securing means recited in the instant claim corresponds to. Similarly, it is not clear to which of the first and/or second flexible tie does the tie recited in the instant claim corresponds to with respect to claim 1. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claim.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
Regarding claims 2, 8-9 and 13
Claims 2, 8-9 and 13 are rejected at least for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 14
It is not clear if steps 530, 535 and 540 recited in the instant are sub-steps within the step 525, or steps of the overall method. From further inspection of the instant specification, it appears steps 530 and 535 are sub-steps within step 525, while step 540 is the last step of the method. However, the claim language does not clearly define these relationships. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill cannot reasonably ascertain the scope of the claimed method.
Appropriate correction and clarification is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,448,390 B1, Clemens.
Regarding claim 1
Clemens teaches a vertical photovoltaic system (corresponding to system 18 comprising suspended photovoltaic panels 4, the photovoltaic panels 4 having a “vertical” orientation; see vertical axes of stanchions 20) comprising at least one photovoltaic module (4) and two posts (corresponding to stanchions 20) [Figs. 1-2, Cols. 3 and 4], which system is characterised in that it comprises at least:
- for each post (20), a primary securing means (corresponding to top eyebolts 32 secured with nuts 40) for securing a first flexible tie (corresponding to cables 6/6’) to said post (20), the collaboration between the primary securing means (32, 40) applying longitudinal tension to the first tie (“[t]the cables 6/6', 8/8' are securely attached under tension to spaced bolts (shown in FIG. 3) on the stanchions 2.”) [see cut-out portion of Fig. 3 below; see also Col. 4],
- the first flexible tie (6/6’) being held taut between the two posts (20) [Fig. 3 and Col. 4], and
- a fixing means (corresponding to hanger assemblies 14) for fixing the module (4) to the first tie (6) [Figs. 2 and 5, Col. 5, lines 34-39];
which also comprises:
- for each post (20), a secondary securing means (corresponding to bottom eyebolts 32 secured with nuts 40) for securing a second flexible tie (corresponding to cables 8/8’) to said post (20) [Fig. 3 and Col. 4], the collaboration between the secondary securing means (32, 40) applying longitudinal tension to the second tie (“[t]the cables 6/6', 8/8' are securely attached under tension to spaced bolts (shown in FIG. 3) on the stanchions 2.”) [see cut-out portion of Fig. 3 below; see also Col. 4], and
- the second flexible tie (8/8’) being held taut between the two posts (20) [Fig. 3 and Col. 4],
the first tie (6) and the second tie (8) being secured to two different parts of the photovoltaic module (see top and bottom of the photovoltaic panels 4) [Figs. 1-3; see also Col. 4].
PNG
media_image1.png
367
990
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
352
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cut-out of Fig. 3
Regarding claim 2
Clemens teaches the photovoltaic system as set forth above, wherein the fixing means (14) comprises a housing (corresponding to hanger clamp 56) at least partially enclosing a first tie (6/6’) [Figs. 6A-6D, Col. 5, lines 45-67 to Col. 6, lines 1-9].
Regarding claim 3
Clemens teaches the photovoltaic system as set forth above, wherein the fixing means (14) traverses at least partially a first tie (6/6’) [Fig. 5, Col. 5, lines 34-65].
Regarding claim 4
Clemens teaches the photovoltaic system as set forth above, wherein the module (4) is rectangular and delimited by at least one side, and the tie (6/6’) extends at the location of this side [Fig. 2].
Regarding claim 5
Clemens teaches the photovoltaic system as set forth above, wherein a fixing means (14) for fixing the photovoltaic module (4) to the tie (6/6’) comprises a fixing mount (corresponding to strap 52 OR to frame 50) for fixing the photovoltaic module (4) [Figs. 6A-6D, Col. 5, lines 45-67 to Col. 6, lines 1-9].
Regarding claim 6
Clemens teaches the photovoltaic system as set forth above, wherein a fixing means (14) for fixing the photovoltaic module (4) to the tie (6/6’) also comprises an intermediate fixing element (corresponding to hanger hook 54) separate from the fixing mount (52 OR 50) and connected to the fixing mount (52) by a connecting means (see nut and bolt 40/60) [Figs. 6D, Col. 5, lines 45-67 to Col. 6, lines 1-9].
Regarding claim 9
Clemens teaches the photovoltaic system as set forth above, wherein the fixing means (14) comprises an adjustment means (corresponding to slot opening 58 OR to plurality of holes 68) configured to position at least one active face of the photovoltaic module (4) closer to or farther from the tie (6/6’) being held taut between the two posts (20) [Figs. 6A-6D, Clo. 5, lines 45-55 and Col. 6, lines 10-17].
Regarding claim 10
Clemens teaches the photovoltaic system as set forth above, wherein at least one fixing means (14) comprises a fixing hook (54) or a fixing clamp (56) [Figs. 6A-6D, Col. 5, lines 45-67 to Col. 6, lines 1-17].
Regarding claim 11
Clemens teaches the photovoltaic system as set forth above, which also comprises at least one anchoring means (corresponding to anchors 26/26’ OR to ground cables 28/28’) for anchoring at least one tie (6/6’) in an installation ground (i.e., earth), the collaboration between said anchoring means (26/26’ OR 28/28’) and the securing means (32, 40) applies supplementary longitudinal tension to the tie (6/6’) (“[t]ension forces on both sides of the stanchion 20 are balanced between the ground cables 28/28' on the one hand, and the catenary cables 6/6', 8/8' on the other hand, via adjustable turnbuckle tensioners (not shown) on the ground cables 28/28'.”) [Figs. 2-3, Col. 4, lines 19-28 and 54-59].
Regarding claim 12
Clemens teaches the photovoltaic system as set forth above, wherein at least one post (20) comprises said securing means (32, 40) for securing a tie (6/6’) [Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 13
Clemens teaches the photovoltaic system as set forth above, wherein at least one securing means (32, 40) comprises an intermediate part (corresponding to thrust plates 36/39) for securing a post (20) to a tie (6/6’) [Fig. 3, Col. 4, lines 45-59].
Regarding claim 14
Clemens teaches a method for installing a cable-supported vertical photovoltaic system (corresponding to system 18 comprising suspended photovoltaic panels 4, the photovoltaic panels 4 having a “vertical” orientation; see vertical axes of stanchions 20) comprising at least one photovoltaic module (4) and two posts (corresponding to stanchions 20) [Figs. 1-2, Cols. 3 and 4], comprising:
- a step (505) of positioning a first post (20), the first post being positioned vertically (see vertical axes of stanchions 20) [Figs. 2-3, Col. 4],
- a step (510) of fixing the first post (20) in an installation ground (stanchions 20 are fixed to the earth via ground cables 28/28’) [Figs. 2-3, Col. 4, lines 19-28 and 54-59],
- a step (515) of positioning a second post (See opposing stanchion 20), the second post being positioned vertically (see vertical axes of stanchions 20) [Figs. 2-3, Col. 4],
- a step (520) of fixing the second post (opposing stanchion 20) in an installation ground (stanchions 20 are fixed to the earth via ground cables 28/28’) [Figs. 2-3, Col. 4, lines 19-28 and 54-59],
- a step (525) of placing under tension at least two flexible ties (corresponding to cables 6/6’ and 8/8’) between the two posts (20) (“[t]the cables 6/6', 8/8' are securely attached under tension to spaced bolts (shown in FIG. 3) on the stanchions 2.”) [see cut-out portion of Fig. 3 below; see also Col. 4], comprising:
- a step (530) of securing each said flexible tie (cables 6/6’ and 8/8’) to the first post (20) [Figs. 2-3, Col. 4, lines 11-18], and
- a step (535) of securing each said flexible tie (cables 6/6’ and 8/8’) to the second post (20) [Figs. 2-3, Col. 4, lines 11-18], and
- a step (540) of fixing a photovoltaic module (4) to said taut flexible tie (cables 6/6’ and 8/8’) [Figs. 2 and 5, Col. 5, lines 34-39],
the first tie and the second tie (cables 6/6’ and 8/8’) being secured to two different parts of the photovoltaic module (see top and bottom of the photovoltaic panels 4) [Figs. 1-3; see also Col. 4].
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemens, as applied to claims 1-6 and 9-14 above, and further in view of US 11,411,525 B2, Hildebrandt et al.
Regarding claim 8
Clemens does not teach the fixing means having at least one portion forming a bevel oriented towards the active face of the photovoltaic module.
Hildebrandt teaches a photovoltaic module (2) fixing means (5) comprising a bevel (24) oriented towards the active face of the photovoltaic module (2) [Fig. 5, Col. 17, lines 58-67 to Col. 18, lines 1-2]. Said bevel (24) minimize the shading of the photovoltaic module (2) by the fixing member (5) [Col. 18, lines 1-2].
Clemens and Hildebrandt are analogous inventions in the field of photovoltaic systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the invention to modify the fixing means of Clemens to have at least one portion forming a bevel oriented towards the active face of the photovoltaic module, as disclosed in Hildebrandt, for the purpose of minimizing shading of the photovoltaic module by saif fixing means.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, whether alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest “the fixing mount for fixing a module also comprises at least one opening partially surrounding the tie and configured to receive the fixing mount for fixing the other photovoltaic module with this tie,” in the context of other limitations recited in the claims.
Clements teaches the system (8) comprising:
- at least a first tie (6/6’) and a second tie (8/8’) [Figs. 2-3, Cols. 4-5],
- at least two photovoltaic modules (4) [Figs. 2-3, Cols. 4-5], and
- for each said module (4), a fixing mount (corresponding to frame 50) delimiting one face of the photovoltaic module (4) [Fig. 5, Col. 5, lines 34-44].
However, the fixing mount (50) of Clemens is not disclosed to comprise at least one opening partially surrounding the tie and configured to receive the fixing mount for fixing the other photovoltaic module with this tie, as required by the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 2669596 A1, BUECHEL et al. teaches (see Figs. 1-2 and Pages 3-4) a vertical photovoltaic system comprising at least one photovoltaic module (19) and two vertical posts (17), and comprising at least:
- for each post (17), a primary securing means for securing a first flexible tie (13) to the post (17),
- the first flexible tie (13) being held taut between the two posts (17), and
- a fixing means for fixing the module (19) to the first tie (13), and
which also comprising:
- for each post (17), a secondary securing means for securing a second flexible tie (27) to the post (17), and
- the second flexible tie (27) being held taut between the two posts (17),
the first tie (13) and the second tie (27) being secured to two separate portions of the photovoltaic module (19).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights