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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 1, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
With regards to the Replacement Drawings, Examiner notes the corrected reference characters appear to be accurate.
The drawings are objected to because the black lines of the drawing are faded, making it difficult to perceive the claimed features of the invention in the drawings. 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.
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 1-9 and 12-21 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 1, lines 28-30 recite, “advance the metal strip by the feeding device to the forming head at a first position to provide a feature associated with the inserted pair of next-to-use forming tools to the metal strip using the pair of forming tools.” As currently written, the recitation of “at a first position” suggests this is the first location at which a feature is to be formed. However, claim 1, lines 15-17 recite, “the forming head configured to apply the pair of in-use forming tools to the metal strip and provide a feature to the portion of the metal strip extending from the feeding device as one of the plurality of forming operations using the pair forming tools.” It is unclear what can or cannot be included within the scope of “a first position” as opposed to “provide a feature to the portion of the metal strip” (previously recited in claim 1, lines 15-17). For purposes of examination, claim 1, liens 28-30 will be interpreted as a subsequent feature provided with respect to the initial, earlier recited feature. Claim 19 recites, “each of the plurality of forming tools comprises a body, a mating end coupled to the top portion of the body, and a block coupled to a bottom portion of the body.” As currently written, there does not appear to be sufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the plurality of forming tools.” Moreover, claim 19 depends from claim 1. However, claim 6 recites, “wherein the robotic arm is configured to retrieve the pair of next-to-use forming tools from a plurality of forming tools and provide the pair of forming tools to the forming head” [emphasis added]; i.e., claim 6 specifically introduces “a plurality of forming tools.” As such, it appears as though claim 19 is referring to “a plurality of forming tools” that have not been defined, and it is unclear what can or cannot be included within the scope of “the plurality of forming tools.” Claim 21 recites, “[t]he system of claim 1 further comprising changing by the robotic arm the pair of forming tools to a second pair of forming tools from the plurality of forming tools prior to providing subsequent feature to the metal strip in the series of forming operations.” As currently written, there does not appear to be sufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the plurality of forming tools.” Moreover, claim 21 depends from claim 1. However, claim 6 recites, “wherein the robotic arm is configured to retrieve the pair of next-to-use forming tools from a plurality of forming tools and provide the pair of forming tools to the forming head” [emphasis added]; i.e., claim 6 specifically introduces “a plurality of forming tools.” As such, it appears as though claim 21 is referring to “a plurality of forming tools” that have not been defined, and it is unclear what can or cannot be included within the scope of “the plurality of forming tools.”
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.
As best understood, claims 1-9, 12-14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al (US Publication 2005/0005664), herein referred to as Scott, in view of Park (US Patent 6,145,359) and further in view of Sartorio (US Patent 5,857,377). Regarding claim 1, Scott discloses a system for forming a metal strip having a cutting edge into a die section having a predetermined shape through a plurality of forming operations, the system comprising:
a base (156) configured to support the metal strip (12) as the metal strip undergoes the plurality of forming operations (paragraph 0053, lines 29-31);
a feeding device (material feeder 104 and forward clamping device 162 work together to feed metal strip 12, as described in para. 0053, lines 19-23) coupled to the base (para. 0053, lines 29-30) and configured to advance and retract the metal strip as the metal strip (12) progresses through the plurality of forming operation (para. 0053, lines 8-11) and to grip the metal strip during at least one of the plurality of forming operations (paragraph 0053, lines 19-23 and lines 31-37);
a bending device (106) coupled to the base adjacent to the feeding device (fig. 3), the bending device configured to bend a portion (12a) of the metal strip extending from the feeding device as one of the plurality of forming operations (paragraph 0056, lines 1-17); and
a forming head (116) coupled to the base (fig. 4), the forming head configured to removably receive a first forming tool and a second forming tool (i.e., “[a]ny number of male or female dies may be interchanged to create a specific type of notch,” paragraph 0057, lines 8-10 [emphases added]), the first and second forming tools providing a pair of in-use forming tools (e.g., 222, 224; the set being used in fig. 6), the forming head configured to apply the pair of in-use forming tools to the metal strip (paragraph 0057, lines 3-4) and provide a feature to the portion of the metal strip (paragraph 0057, lines 4-6) extending from the feeding device as one of the plurality of forming operations using the pair of forming tools (paragraph 0057, lines 1-8); and a computing unit (i.e., “[m]aterial feeder 104 is controlled by the computer control system…” paragraph 0053, lines 4-5) configured to transmit a series of control signals to: advance the metal strip by the feeding device to the forming head at a first position to provide the feature associated with the selected pair of forming tools to the metal strip using the pair of forming tools (paragraph 0053, lines 1-6);
retract the metal strip by the feeding device to the bending device to perform a bend operation relative to the first position where the feature was provided to the metal strip; and advance the metal strip by the feeding device to a second position for a
subsequent forming operation of the series of forming operations (paragraph 0053, lines 33-37). Further, Scott discloses at least a portion of the first and second forming tools extend below the forming head (fig. 6). ● Scott fails to disclose the removably received first forming tool and second forming tool are inserted into one or more chambers (col. 6, lines 34-36) of the forming head, such that at least a portion of the forming tools is exposed below the forming head. However, Park teaches it is known in the art of systems for forming metal strips into dies to provide a forming head (annotated fig. 1) configured to removably receive a first forming tool (bridge cutting mold 20 with bridge cutting jig 21) and a second forming tool (corresponding cutting surface 20a, fig. 6A) into one or more chambers (col. 6, lines 34-39) of the forming head. Park teaches the first and second forming tools providing a pair of in-use forming tools (20, 21; col. 8, lines 28-43), the forming head configured to apply the pair of in-use forming tools to the metal strip and provide a feature (e.g., 1a, 1b) to the portion of the metal strip extending from the feeding device (50) as one of the plurality of forming operations using the pair of forming tools (other forming operations include bending 31). Park teaches the first and second forming tools are configured provide a feature (e.g., 1a, 1b) to the portion of the metal strip extending from the feeding device (50) as one of the plurality of forming operations using the pair of forming tools.
PNG
media_image1.png
574
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Scott with the teaching of Park such that the forming head configured to removably receive a first forming tool and a second forming tool into one or more chambers of the forming head such that at least a portion of the forming tools is exposed below the forming head in order to simplify the exchange of the forming tools and in order to facilitate multiple types of forming operations in rapid succession without swapping out one type of forming tool for another type of forming tool. ● The modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above fails to disclose the system includes a robotic arm coupled to the base, the robotic arm configured to selectively exchange the in-use forming tools with a pair of next-to-use forming tools, the robotic arm comprising a gripping portion shaped to engage to a top portion of each of the pair of in-use forming tools and the pair of next-to-use forming tools; wherein one of the series of control signals transmitted by the computing unit causes the robotic arm to exchange the pair of in-use forming tools with the pair of next-to-use forming tools by removing the pair of in-use forming tools from the forming head and inserting the pair of next-to-use forming tools into the forming head. However, Sartorio (US Patent 5,857,377) teaches it is known in the art of metal working machines to provide a robot arm coupled to a base of the machine, facilitate “the replacement of one or both the tools of the bending machine is effected by means of [the] automatic tool-changing device constituted by [the] Cartesian robot,” col. 13, lines 11-13) to the forming head (i.e., bending machine 80 performs forming operations on the piece to be worked, e.g., sheet metal articles). Sartorio teaches the robotic arm comprising a gripping portion (“tool-gripping head [382] of the device for automatic placement of one or both of the tools of the bending machine,” col. 5, lines 8-11) shaped to correspond to a top portion of the one or more forming tools (col. 13, lines 43-60; see also figs. 28-31) to secure the one or more forming tools to the robotic arm when providing the one or more forming tools (i.e., “pair of replacement tools” 436) to the forming head (col. 14, lines 18-24), and a computing unit (78). Additionally, Sartorio teaches how the robotic arm (60) is configured “for the automatic replacement of the tools” (col. 3, lines 7-8) and to do so in conjunction with other devices in the system associated with bending station 56; stating in col. 14, lines 11-17, “[t]he tool-changing robot … is first brought near to the tool-holding store and picks up a pair of replacement tool 436… This step is normally carried out whilst the bending machine is carrying out its normal bending cycle with the tools 434” [emphasis added]. Sartorio teaches system (50) performs “its normal bending cycle” by operating the associated devices according to a predetermined program. For example, Sartorio states, “[t]he bending station 56 comprises a Cartesian manipulator 64” (col. 3, line 10), wherein “[i]n order to execute each [forming operation], the manipulator 64 … is controlled by [the] conventional control unit 78 [for positioning] the [sheet metal] in a position which is determined on the basis of a program established in dependence on the geometrical shape of the piece to be worked” (col. 3, lines 26-30). Additionally, Sartorio states in col. 3, lines 41-43, “[t]he rotary and pivoting movement of the tool-holder structure 82 are brought about by the control unit 78 on the basis of a predetermined program.” Moreover, Sartorio states in col. 14, lines 18-24, “[i]n order to replace the tools, the bending machine is brought into a configuration in which the bending plane extends vertically and in which the punch and the die are in contact with each other (FIG. 33). The gripping head of the tool-changing robot is made to descend from above so as to position the first pair of tools 434 between the gripping fingers 392, 394.” Sartorio subsequently describes the coordinated movements between the tool-holding structure of the bending machine and the tool-changing robot for installing the new pair of tools (436) into the tool-holding structure of the bending machine, as described in col. 14, lines 37-48). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Scott substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Sartorio such that a robotic arm coupled to the base, the robotic arm configured to selectively provide the pair of forming tools to the forming head, the robotic arm comprising a gripping portion shaped to correspond to a top portion of the one or more forming tools to secure the one or more forming tools to the robotic arm when providing the one or more forming tools to the forming head; and wherein the computing unit communicates with the robotic arm, the computing unit configured to transmit a control signal to cause the robotic arm to retrieve the pair of forming tools and provide the pair of forming tools to the forming head in order to facilitate the automatic replacement of any set of tools in the system of Scott, including one or more of the forming tools, allowing for the automation of the die forming process. Moreover, the aforementioned modification would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results. In this case, Scott states in paragraph 0057, lines 8-10, “[a]ny number of male or female dies may be interchanged to create a specific type of notch.” Thus, modifying the system of Scott to include a robotic arm in communication with a computing unit that operates the system allows for the pair of forming tools to be exchanged during a bending operation when the forming head is not required to perform a forming operation in the event the predetermined manufacturing program calls for a different type of notch to be formed in the workpiece. Regarding claim 2, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes the forming head (Scott 116) is movable vertically relative to the base (Scott 156) to provide the features to the portion of the metal strip (Scott 12) extending from the feeding device (Scott paragraph 0055, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes the forming head is configured to apply a lateral force (Scott annotated fig. 6) to at least one of a pair of forming tools (Scott 222, 224) received within the forming head to provide a feature to the portion of the metal strip (Scott paragraph 0057, liens 4-6).
PNG
media_image2.png
448
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose the lateral force is configured based on a type of the metal strip. However, the following is set forth in Scott: In paragraph 0047, lines 8-23, Scott states, “[d]epending upon the characteristics of the material being bent the computer control system determines if heating is required to aid in bending [emphasis added]. Experimentation on steel having a height on the order of 19 mm to 50 mm and having a thickness on the order of 2 mm to 3 mm has indicated that angles on the order of 45 degrees are more precisely bent if the region to be bent is heated. … The computer control system determines when material should be heated before bending; this depends upon the bending angle and the characteristics of the material.” In paragraph 0049, lines 1-6, Scott states, “[b]ending machine 100 is capable of bending a wide variety of materials and in typical use bends steel having a height on the order of 19 mm to 50 mm and having a thickness on the order of 2 mm to 3 mm. In order to bend such material, bending tool 106 is powered by a motor having sufficient torque to bend the material.” In paragraph 0055, lines 3-5, Scott states, “[h]eating unit 114 utilizes a heat concentrator 190 to heat material 12 to aid in bending and nicking.” In paragraph 0056, lines 25-28, Scott states, “[a]lthough bending tool 106 serves as a cutter for the material, in the case of relatively thin material, a separate cutter may be required, as it may be too flexible to be broken by rotary portion 184.” In paragraph 0058, lines 10-12, Scott states, “[s]hould material 12 require heating, heating unit 114 is raised so that heat concentrator 190 is adjacent to material 12…” In paragraph 0068, lines 6-10, “a sharpened edge may be hardened and require more heat to reduce or eliminate fractures when being nicked. The body of the same material may not be hardened and require less heat to bent.” The aforementioned disclosures suggest the computer control system of Scott is configured to determine whether or not heating is required depending to perform the desired forming operations (i.e., either bending or notching) on a workpiece depending upon the desired forming operations and the characteristics of the material. If the material is heated, the material may require less force to perform the desired forming operations. Moreover, materials of different widths and heights will require varying amounts of force to bend and form. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Scott substantially disclosed above in view of the additional teaching set forth in the disclosure of the same such that the lateral force is configured based on a type of the metal strip in order to allow the computer control system to apply a sufficient amount of force to either of the forming operations, including a sufficient lateral force to each of the one or more forming tools, based on the type of metal strip according to the characteristics of the material being formed, thereby reducing unnecessary ware on the forming tools themselves and on the associated driving elements that actuate the forming tools. For example, a notch being formed in a small portion of a thin metal band will require less lateral force to actuate each of the one or more forming tools to perform the desired forming operation than a notch being formed in a large section of a thicker metal bend.
Regarding claim 5, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes the lateral force is configured based on the feature provided by the forming operation. As set forth in the 103 rejection of claim 4 set forth above, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Scott substantially disclosed above in view of the additional teaching set forth in the disclosure of the same such that the lateral force is configured based on the forming operation in order to allow the computer control system to apply a sufficient amount of force to either of the forming operations, including a sufficient lateral force to each of the one or more forming tools, based on the type of metal strip according to the characteristics of the material being formed, thereby reducing unnecessary ware on the forming tools themselves and on the associated driving elements that actuate the forming tools.
Regarding claim 6, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes the robotic arm (as taught by Sartorio) is configured to retrieve the pair of forming tools (Scott, paragraph 0057, lines 8-10) from a plurality of forming tools and provide the pair of forming tools to the forming head (Sartori col. 14, lines 18-24), wherein the pair of forming tools is selected based upon a type of desired forming operation (Scott paragraph 0057, lines 8-10).
PNG
media_image3.png
502
699
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes the pair of forming tools are housed in a pallet (Sartorio 62, annotated fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes the feeding device (Scott 104, 162) grips the metal strip (Scott 12) in more than one location. Scott states in paragraph 0053, lines 16-23, “[m]aterial feeder 104 is driven linearly by material feeder screw 158 along guide 160… Forward clamping device 162 is engaged to clamp material 12 when material feeder 104 is released from material 12 to return to a home position. When material feeder 104 returns to a home position to clamp material 12 remains in position.”
Regarding claim 9, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes a heating element (Scott 190) configured to selectively heat the portion of the metal strip extending from the feeding device (Scott paragraph 0057, lines 10-14 and paragraph 0068) before the bend operation (i.e., the computer is capable of controlling the system such that no bending operations are performing until the metal strip has been heated. Regarding claim 12, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes a temperature controller (i.e. “computer control system,” Scott paragraph 0068, line 2) configured to provide variable temperature control of the metal strip by adjusting the heating element in response to the temperature information (Scott paragraph 0068, lines 1-6). Regarding claim 13, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes the heating element (Scott 190) is positioned below the base and is movable vertically with respect to the base (Scott paragraph 0055, lines 5-9 and paragraph 0057, lines 10-14).Regarding claim 14, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes the heating element (190) is movable vertically from below a top surface of the base through the base (see figs. 4 and 6) to directly heat the portion of the metal strip (Scott paragraph 0066). Regarding claim 17, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes the pair of forming tools comprises a male forming tool and female forming tool (i.e. in order to form the desired shapes, there are forming tools with concave and convex portions). Regarding claim 18, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes a punch (i.e., Scott’s nicking tool has punch features) for forming features in the metal strip.
As best understood, claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US Publication 2005/0005664), Park (US Patent 6,145,359) and Sartorio (US Patent 5,857,377) in further view of Arana Gárate (EP 2 537 629).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes fails to specifically disclose the following: In claim 15, the robotic arm provides at least four degrees of freedom (Arana Gárate 20); and In claim 16, the robotic arm (Arana Gárate, 20) that is a SCARA (fig. 5). However, Arana Gárate teaches it is known in the art of systems for changing tools to utilize a robotic arm with at least four degrees of freedom (Arana Gárate 20); wherein the robotic arm (20) appears to be a SCARA (fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Scott with the teaching of Arana Gárate such that the robotic arm is a SCARA including at least four degrees of freedom in order to provide sufficient articulation to quickly move back and forth between the forming head and the tool magazine.
As best understood, claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott (US Publication 2005/0005664), Park (US Patent 6,145,359) and Sartorio (US Patent 5,857,377) in further view of Kopf (EP 2532 456). Regarding claim 19, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above fails to specifically disclose includes each of the plurality of forming tools comprises a body, a mating end coupled to the top portion of the body, and a block coupled to a bottom portion of the body. However, Kopf teaches it is known in the art of robots for performing operations in metal working machines to provide each of a plurality of forming tools (e.g., see fig. 12a of Kopf) comprises a body, a mating end (58d) coupled to the top portion of the body, and a block coupled to a bottom portion of the body (Kopf fig. 134). it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Scott with the teaching of Kopf in order to facilitate increased flexibility in holding different shaped tools. Regarding claim 20, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes the mating end (Kopf 58d) is generally sized and shaped to conform to a gripping portion of the robotic arm (Kopf robotic arc is capable of gripping element 58d). Regarding claim 21, the modified system of Scott substantially disclosed above includes changing by the robotic arm the pair of forming tools to a second pair of forming tools from the plurality of forming tools prior to providing subsequent feature to the metal strip in the series of forming operations (all references utilize multiple sets of tools to perform different operations, and Kopf describes in paragraph 0070 how various portions of the system are automatically controlled by the computer program).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 3, 2024 have been fully considered to the extent they are relevant to the prior art rejections set forth above in the present Office Action, but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, lines 3-6 of the Remarks (dated April 3, 2024), Applicant argues “[e]ven if the Cartesian robot of Sartorio is considered as the claimed robotic arm, Sartorio teaches a finger arrangement that engages the sides of the forming tools. This does not suggest the claimed subject matter in which the robotic arm engages with the top of the forming tools in order [to] remove them from and insert them into the forming heading.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The “sides of the forming tools” noted by Applicant are interpreted as corresponding to “a top portion of the forming tools.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Braden (US Patent 1,883,335) discloses a machine for making dies that includes opposing swaging blocks (12, 14) configured to be moved laterally toward one another to form a member of the die. Dunn (US Patent 4,520,550) discloses a robotic tool changer. Aviles (US Patent 4,601,637) discloses a robotic tool manipulator.
Denkmeier (US Publication 2013/0203572) discloses a tool magazine for a robotic manipulator. Cappello et al (US Patent 6,416,448) discloses a device for changing bending tools wherein the bending tools are inserted vertically into a tool holder by a robot arm. Furuya (US Patent 9,329,585) discloses a robotic assembly device. Suzuki (US Patent 9,757,863) discloses a robotic tool exchanging system. Lee et al (US Publication 2016/0207202) discloses a robotic tool changer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-5pm 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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at (571)270-3818. 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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 October 4, 2025
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724