DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined herein.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cicci et al. (US20210156240) [Cicci].
Claim 1 Cicci discloses a system 300 for transferring fluid [Figs. 3-5], the system comprising:
a manifold 304 having a fluid inlet [Figs. 3,4; para. 0024,0031];
a pump truck [Fig. 3] having a first pump 306 disposed thereon, wherein the [para. 0024,0025];
a flexible pipe 310A configured to couple the [Figs. 3-5],
wherein the flexible pipe has a first connection point at a first end, the first connection point configured to couple 504 to the fluid outlet [Fig. 5; para. 0037],
wherein the flexible pipe has a second connection point at a second end, the second connection point configured to couple 506 to the fluid inlet [Fig. 5; para. 0036], and
wherein the fluid inlet and fluid outlet are separated by a first linear distance [Fig. 3] in a range bounded by a first distance determined, at least in part, by a length of the flexible pipe [the separation inherently has maximum linear distance determined by the length of the pipe] and a second distance determined, at least in part, by a pipe variable of the flexible pipe [the separation inherently has a minimum linear distance dictated by either the resistance to compression of the pipe (when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), such resistance being a characteristic of the material’s flexibility, i.e. at least one pipe variable, or a crimping of the pipe (again when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), such crimping being a performance characteristic based on, e.g., the material and the inside and outside diameters, i.e. at least one pipe variable].
Claim 8 Cicci, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that a position of the fluid outlet is within a range of locations based on the first linear distance [as shown on Fig. 3, if the first linear distance, i.e., the space between the pump and the manifold changes, e.g., by moving the pump, the pump fluid outlet will be moved with the pump to the new location to accommodate the change].
Claim 9 Cicci, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the range forms an inner radius and an outer radius, inclusive, that the fluid outlet resides in relative to the fluid inlet [in that, the pump fluid outlet will inherently be at a maximum linear distance determined by the length of the pipe, i.e., an outer radius, and will inherently be at a minimum linear distance dictated by either the resistance to compression of the pipe (when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), or a crimping of the pipe (again when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), i.e., an inner radius)].
Claim 10 Cicci, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the pipe variable comprises a pipe flexibility [as discussed re Cicci at claim 1 herein with regard to the resistance to compression].
Claim 11 Cicci, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the pipe variable comprises a pipe diameter[as discussed re Cicci at claim 1 herein with regard to the crimping] .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cicci, in view of Brunella (US6331020).
Claim 2 Cicci, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the environment of use often includes obstacles and/or elevation differences that must be traversed by the flexible pipe, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the first connection point comprises an angled connection or a non-straight connection.
Brunella discloses angled connections [Figs. 1-4, 12-15] between flexible pipe 10 and any pump [for attachment to pump outlet flange 22; Figs. 1-4; abstract; col. 1, lines 34,35, col. 3, lines 28-60].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Cicci to include an angled connection for the first connection point, as disclosed by Brunella. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this inclusion would have been within the skill of the art and would yield and achieve the predictable result that a path variation would be provided in an environment of use which called for a path alteration in light of an anticipated obstacle or change in elevation.
Claim 3 Cicci, as discussed with respect to claim 1, discloses that the environment of use often includes obstacles and/or elevation differences that must be traversed by the flexible pipe, and otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the second connection point comprises an angled connection or a non-straight connection.
Brunella discloses angled connections [Figs. 1-4, 12-15] between flexible pipe 10 and any pump [for attachment to pump outlet flange 22; Figs. 1-4; abstract; col. 1, lines 34,35, col. 3, lines 28-60].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Cicci to include an angled connection for the second connection point, as disclosed by Brunella. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this inclusion would have been within the skill of the art and would yield and achieve the predictable result that a path variation would be provided in an environment of use which called for a path alteration in light of an anticipated obstacle or change in elevation.
Claim 4 Cicci, as discussed with respect to claim 1, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that the flexible pipe extends at an angle relative to the manifold [the view in Figs. 3,4 not providing such information].
Brunella discloses angled connections [Figs. 1-4, 12-15] between flexible pipe 10 and any pump [for attachment to pump outlet flange 22; Figs. 1-4; abstract; col. 1, lines 34,35, col. 3, lines 28-60], such angles including 45 degrees and 90 degrees [Figs. 12-15].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Cicci to include an angled connection of either 45 degrees or 90 degrees for the second connection point, as disclosed by Brunella, such that the pipe extends at an angle relative to the mandrel, e.g., an angle with respect to the horizontal. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this inclusion would have been within the skill of the art and would yield and achieve the predictable result that a path variation would be provided in an environment of use which called for a path alteration in light of an anticipated obstacle or change in elevation.
Claim 5 Cicci, as modified, with respect to claim 4, discloses that the angle is within an angle range that is restricted by a location of the manifold [as shown in Fig. 3, if the manifold is closer to the pump the angle of the flexible hose 310A at the manifold will be larger with respect to the horizontal].
Claim 6 Cicci, as modified, with respect to claim 5, discloses that the angle range is 0 to 180 degrees, inclusive [e.g., 45 degrees and 90 degrees, as discussed at claim 4 above].
Claim 7 Cicci, as modified, with respect to claim 5, discloses that a position of the fluid outlet is within a range of locations based on the angle range [as shown on Fig. 3, if the angle at the pump fluid outlet changes the pump must be moved to a location to accommodate the change, such as closer to the manifold, if such angle increases].
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post et al. (US20210404579) [Post], in view of Johnson (US20200386359).
Claim 1 Post discloses a system 100 for transferring fluid [Fig. 1; abstract; para. 0026,0027,0032-0036], the system comprising:
a manifold 201,204 having a fluid inlet [e.g., proximate the point of entry of fluid from hose 203,206; para. 0028,0030,0031];
a pump 202,205 [para. 0028,0030],
wherein the pump has a fluid outlet [e.g., proximate the point of exit of fluid from the pump]; and
a flexible pipe 203,206 configured to couple the fluid outlet to the fluid inlet [Fig. 1; para. 0028,0029],
wherein the flexible pipe has a first connection point at a first end, the first connection point configured to couple to the fluid outlet [as shown on Fig. 1; para. 0028-0024; and as specifically detailed on any of Figs. 2-9; para. 0037-0047,0050,0062,0064,0067,0074,0078],
wherein the flexible pipe has a second connection point at a second end, the second connection point configured to couple to the fluid inlet[as shown on Fig. 1; para. 0028-0024; and as specifically detailed on any of Figs. 2-9; para. 0037-0047,0050,0062,0064,0067, 0074,0078], and
wherein the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet are separated by a first linear distance [Fig. 1] in a range bounded by a first distance determined, at least in part, by a length of the flexible pipe 203,206 [the separation inherently has maximum linear distance determined by the length of the pipe] and a second distance determined, at least in part, by a pipe variable of the flexible pipe [the separation inherently has a minimum linear distance dictated by either the resistance to compression of the pipe (when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), such resistance being a characteristic of the material’s flexibility, i.e. at least one pipe variable, or a crimping of the pipe (again when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), such crimping being a performance characteristic based on, e.g., the material and the inside and outside diameters, i.e. at least one pipe variable].
Post otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim but does not explicitly disclose that the pump is part of a pump truck.
Johnson discloses that a frac pump 5 is present on truck 8 thus providing a “pump truck” [Fig. 2; para. 0018].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Post to position the pumps 202,205 on pump trucks, as disclosed by Johnson. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the well-known pump truck configuration would provide the pumped fluid.
Claim 2 Post, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the first connection point comprises an angled connection or a non-straight connection [as shown in Fig. 1].
Claim 3 Post, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the second connection point comprises an angled connection or a non-straight connection [as shown in Fig. 1].
Claim 4 Post, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the flexible pipe extends at an angle relative to the manifold [as shown in Fig. 1].
Claim 5 Post, as modified with respect to claim 4, discloses that the angle is within an angle range that is restricted by a location of the manifold [as shown in Fig. 1, if the manifold is closer to the pump the angle of the flexible hose 203,206 at the manifold will be larger with respect to the horizon].
Claim 6 Post, as modified with respect to claim 5, discloses that the angle range is 0 to 180 degrees, inclusive [as shown in Fig. 1].
Claim 7 Post, as modified with respect to claim 5, discloses that a position of the fluid outlet is within a range of locations based on the angle range [as shown on Fig. 1, if the angle at the pump fluid outlet changes the pump must be moved to a location to accommodate the change, such as closer to the manifold, if such angle increases].
Claim 8 Post, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that a position of the fluid outlet is within a range of locations based on the first linear distance [as shown on Fig. 1, if the first linear distance, i.e., the space between the pump and the manifold changes, e.g., by moving the pump, the pump fluid outlet will be moved with the pump to the new location to accommodate the change].
Claim 9 Post, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the range forms an inner radius and an outer radius, inclusive, that the fluid outlet resides in relative to the fluid inlet [in that, the pump fluid outlet will inherently be at a maximum linear distance determined by the length of the pipe, i.e., an outer radius, and will inherently be at a minimum linear distance dictated by either the resistance to compression of the pipe (when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), or a crimping of the pipe (again when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), i.e., an inner radius)].
Claim 10 Post, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the pipe variable comprises a pipe flexibility [as discussed re Post at claim 1 herein with regard to the resistance to compression].
Claim 11 Post, as modified with respect to claim 1, discloses that the pipe variable comprises a pipe diameter[as discussed re Post at claim 1 herein with regard to the crimping] .
Claim 12 Post discloses a 100 for transferring fluid [Fig. 1; abstract; para. 0026,0027,0032-0036], the system comprising:
a manifold 201,204 having a fluid inlet [e.g., proximate the point of entry of fluid from hose 203,206; para. 0028,0030,0031];
a pump 202,205 [para. 0028],
wherein the pump has a fluid outlet [e.g., proximate the point of exit of fluid from the pump]; and
a flexible pipe 203,206 configured to couple the fluid outlet to the fluid inlet [Fig. 1; para. 0028,0029],
wherein the flexible pipe forms a downward concave arch extending over a space between the pump 202,205 truck and the manifold 201,204 [as shown in Fig. 1 each of the flexible hoses form such an arch],
wherein the flexible pipe extends from the fluid outlet in a first direction [e.g., outwardly and upwardly] and from the fluid inlet in a second direction [e.g., outwardly and upwardly], and
wherein the flexible pipe extends at an angle [e.g., upwardly] relative to the manifold [Fig. 1].
Post otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim but does not explicitly disclose that the pump is part of a pump truck.
Johnson discloses that a frac pump 5 is present on truck 8 thus providing a “pump truck” [Fig. 2; para. 0018].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Post to position the pumps 202,205 on pump trucks, as disclosed by Johnson. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this combination of prior art elements and techniques would have been within the skill of the art and would successfully yield and achieve the expected and predictable result that the well-known pump truck configuration would provide the pumped fluid.
Claim 13 Post, as modified with respect to claim 12, discloses that the angle is within an angle range that is restricted by a location of the manifold [as shown in Fig. 1, if the manifold is closer to the pump the angle of the flexible hose 203,206 at the manifold will be larger with respect to the horizon].
Claim 14 Post, as modified with respect to claim 13, discloses that the angle range is 0 to 180 degrees, inclusive [as shown in Fig. 1].
Claim 15 Post, as modified with respect to claim 13, discloses that a position of the fluid outlet is within a range of locations based on the angle range [as shown on Fig. 1, if the angle at the pump fluid outlet changes the pump must be moved to a location to accommodate the change, such as closer to the manifold if such angle increases].
Claim 16 Post, as modified with respect to claim 15, discloses that the range of locations is further based on a first linear distance that separates the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet [as shown on Fig. 1, if the first linear distance, i.e., the space between the pump and the manifold changes, e.g., by moving the pump, the pump fluid outlet will be moved with the pump to the new location to accommodate the change].
Claim 17 Post, as modified with respect to claim 16, discloses that the first linear distance is in a range bounded by a first distance determined, at least in part, by a length of the flexible pipe 203,206 [the separation inherently has maximum linear distance determined by the length of the pipe] and a second distance determined, at least in part, by a pipe variable of the flexible pipe [the separation inherently has a minimum linear distance dictated by either the resistance to compression of the pipe (when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), such resistance being a characteristic of the material’s flexibility, i.e. at least one pipe variable, or a crimping of the pipe (again when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), such crimping being a performance characteristic based on, e.g., the material and the inside and outside diameters, i.e. at least one pipe variable].
Claim 18 Post, as modified with respect to claim 17, discloses that the pipe variable comprises a pipe flexibility [as discussed at claim 17 herein].
Claim 19 Post, as modified with respect to claim 17, discloses that the range forms an inner radius and an outer radius, inclusive, that the fluid outlet resides in relative to the fluid inlet [in that, the pump fluid outlet will inherently be at a maximum linear distance determined by the length of the pipe, i.e., an outer radius, and will inherently be at a minimum linear distance dictated by either the resistance to compression of the pipe (when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), or a crimping of the pipe (again when pressed between the pump and the manifold as the distance between such equipment decreases), i.e., an inner radius)].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Post, in view of Johnson, and further in view of Brunella (US6331020).
Claim 20 Post, as modified with respect to claim 12, otherwise discloses all the limitations of this claim, but does not explicitly disclose that at least one of the first direction or the second direction comprises an angle greater than 30 degrees from horizontal.
Brunella discloses angled connections [Figs. 1-4,12-15] between flexible pipe 10 and any pump [for attachment to pump outlet flange 22; Figs. 1-4; abstract; col. 1, lines 34,35, col. 3, lines 28-60], the angle being selectable in ranges including above 30 degrees, e.g., 45 degrees and 90 degrees [Figs. 12-15].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have configured the apparatus and methods of Post, as modified, to include a 45 degree angled hose connection for the first connection point and the second connection point, such that the first and second directions are 45 degrees from horizontal, i.e., greater than 30 degrees from horizontal such an angled hose connection being disclosed by Brunella. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably have expected that this inclusion would have been within the skill of the art and would yield and achieve the predictable result that a path variation would be provided in an environment of use which called for a path alteration in light of an anticipated obstacle or change in elevation.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are all rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. No. 11,624,267. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims 1, 3, 8, and 11 of the referenced patent recites all the elements of claim 1 of the present application.
Claims 12-20 are all rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. No. 11,624,267. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims 1, 3, 8, and 11 of the referenced patent recites all the elements of claim 12 of the present application.
Claims 1-11 are all rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. No. 12,221,866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims 1, 3, 8, and 11 of the referenced patent recites all the elements of claim 1 of the present application.
Claims 12-20 are all rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. No. 12,221,866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims 1, 3, 8, and 11 of the referenced patent recites all the elements of claim 12 of the present application.
Claims 1-11 are all rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. No. 12,571,288. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims 1, 3, 8, and 11 of the referenced patent recites all the elements of claim 1 of the present application.
Claims 12-20 are all rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. No. 12,572,288. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of claims 1, 3, 8, and 11 of the referenced patent recites all the elements of claim 12 of the present application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Randle et al. (US20140290768) discloses an arch (Fig. 1A leaving pump 102) not spanning the entire distance between the arched pipe’s first and second ends and not flexible. Ayers et al. (US20160308570) discloses an arch (Fig. 1 leaving a tree 23) not spanning the entire distance between the arched pipe’s first and second ends and not flexible. Pelletier et al. (US20120145247) discloses non-straight flexible pipe connectors [Figs. 14,15]. Kleinert (US6109306) discloses that flexible pipes kink beyond a minimum bend radius and that steps are needed to resist kinking [Figs. 4,5; abstract; col. 2, line 41 – col. 3, line 10, col. 7, line 51 – col. 8, line 23].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE STERLING GRAY whose telephone number is (313)446-4820. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4 Eastern - M-F.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/GEORGE S GRAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
