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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment filed on 04/02/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
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.
2. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”) in view of Jayaram et al. (US 2002/0123812 A1).
As per Claim 1 and 19-20, Zhang et al. teaches a design support apparatus/ non-transitory computer readable medium storing program /method (Fig. 5) comprising: a processor (Fig. 21, “Fig. 21 shows the implementation interface… All cases were carried out on a desktop with 8-GB memory and 2.83-GHz Intel Core2 CPU.” on the right column of Pg 1198 section 8.2) configured to:
extract a component from a three-dimensional model that includes a combination of a plurality of components (“polygon mesh data of the assembly as an input. It cycles the parts of the target assembly and carries out the interference detection between every two parts in w” on the left column of Pg 1191; Fig. 5
PNG
media_image1.png
145
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); and
generate a virtual model on the three-dimensional model (“A bounding volume is a simple geometry enclosing the object. A pair of objects are impossible to collide if their bounding volumes do not intersect.” on the left column of Pg 1189: bounding volumes enclosing the objects of the assembly are used to test for collisions) …; and
display determination results, in a display form predetermined in the determination results (Fig. 5, 17 &18
PNG
media_image2.png
180
360
media_image2.png
Greyscale
; “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis. These facets mostly distribute on the contacting curve surfaces between parts.” On the right column of Pg 1198: displaying the results of its interference determination by highlighting the facets involved).
Zhang et al. fails to teach explicitly … determined from the size of the extracted component; and
the determination results being obtained by determining whether a component other than the extracted component interferes with the virtual model in a predetermined position between the virtual model and the extracted component.
Jayaram et al. teaches … determined from the size of the extracted component ([0017] “the swept volume of the virtual part can be viewed in the virtual environment.”; [0088], [0091], [0221]-[0228], Fig. 7); and
the determination results being obtained by determining whether a component other than the extracted component interferes with the virtual model in a predetermined position between the virtual model and the extracted component ([0020] “can be assembled safely (no collisions) without interfering with other parts or environment objects and where any interferences will occur in assembly”, [0088], [0202]-[0204]). In particular, Jayaram et al. describes a swept volume of a virtual part that is generated from the part and rendered on the model ([0017]) and using a swept volume together with collision detection to determine whether a virtual part interferes with other parts and where such interference occurs ([0020]).
Zhang et al. and Jayaram et al. are analogous art because they are both related to a method for interference checking of assembly models.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Jayaram et al. into Zhang et al.’s invention for purpose of generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning to improve engineering design and manufacturing assembly tasks (Jayaram et al.: [0006]), thus it would predictably enable the design-support apparatus to detect, and prompt correction of, assembly-blocking interference between the generated virtual model and surrounding components.
As per Claim 2, Zhang et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, in different display forms, a first component that the determination results have determined as interfering with the virtual model and a second component that the determination results have not determined as interfering with the virtual model (Fig. 18 “The overlapped facets between minor interfered parts in x-axis”; “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis. These facets mostly distribute on the contacting curve surfaces between parts.” On the right column of Pg 1198: Examiner Note – Fig. 18 illustrates a gear box and the shaft hole-lifted parts, and the interfering parts are highlighted in green and bule where the rest are in white).
As per Claim 3, Zhang et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors as the different display forms, the first component determined as interfering with the virtual model and the second component not determined as interfering with the virtual model (Fig. 18 “The overlapped facets between minor interfered parts in x-axis”; “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis.” On the right column of Pg 1198: Examiner Note – Fig. 18 illustrates a gear box and the shaft hole-lifted parts, and the interfering parts are highlighted in green and bule where the rest are in white).
As per Claim 4, Zhang et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors as the different display forms, the extracted component having a predetermined relationship with the virtual model that the determination results have determined as being interfered with the first component and the second component that the determination results have not determined as interfering with the virtual model (Fig. 18 “The overlapped facets between minor interfered parts in x-axis”; “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis.” On the right column of Pg 1198: Examiner Note – Fig. 18 illustrates a gear box and the shaft hole-lifted parts, and the interfering parts are highlighted in green and bule where the rest are in white. Every combination of two parts among the components of Fig. 18 is treated separately, i. e. extracted, and undergoes the overlap and intersection test according to the algorithm of Fig. 5).
As per Claim 7-10, Zhang et al. teaches wherein the extracted component is a gear (Fig. 16 & 18 “A gear box and the shaft hole-fitted parts”: P2 of Fig. 16), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the component other than the extracted component interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (pg. 1189 “A bounding volume is a simple geometry enclosing the object. A pair of objects are impossible to collide if their bounding volumes do not intersect.”: Examiner Note – There is an interference between the gear (P2 of Fig. 16) and the shaft (P11 of Fig. 16) visible in Fig. 17(a) (value of 2 on the row of P2 intersected with the column of P11). Fig. 3, a value of 2 corresponds to hard interference between parts, i.e. penetration, not just a minor contact interference. For such a hard interference between shaft and gear to exist, the shaft must be larger than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear. As the virtual model, i.e. bounding box, is used for determining interference, and as it encloses the shaft, it is also larger than the inner diameter of the shaft hole. -testing interference using a bounding volume that encloses the part and is therefore larger than the inner diameter of the gear’s shaft hole).
As per Claim 13, Zhang et al. discloses wherein the processor is configured to set a side of the virtual model which is larger by the predetermined size than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear free from being interfered with to be aligned with a direction of assembly of the gear (pg. 1189 “A bounding volume is a simple geometry enclosing the object. A pair of objects are impossible to collide if their bounding volumes do not intersect.”, Fig. 11 (d) “B(M0) and B(M1) do not intersect”, “AABBs of two models do not intersect in the assembly” on the left column of Pg 1195: testing interference using a bounding volume that encloses the part and is therefore larger than the inner diameter of the gear’s shaft hole).
As per Claim 15, Zhang et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to place the virtual model having a predetermined size in the direction of assembly to determine whether another component interferes with the virtual model (Fig. 11 (d), left column of Pg 1195
PNG
media_image3.png
373
583
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
4. Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”) in view of Jayaram et al. (US 2002/0123812 A1), and further in view of Rossignac et al. (“Interactive Inspection of Solids: Cross-sections and Interferences”)
Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 19-20 above.
As per Claim 5, Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors, the virtual model determined as being interfered with a first component and a second component not determined to interfere with the virtual model.
Rossignac et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, in different colors, the virtual model determined as being interfered with a first component and a second component not determined to interfere with the virtual model (Fig. 9-10).
Zhang et al., Jayaram et al. and Rossignac et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for interference checking of assembly models.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Rossignac et al. into Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al.’s invention for purpose of generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning to improve engineering design and manufacturing assembly tasks (Jayaram et al.: [0006]). In particular, Rossignac et al. teaches the interference visualization technique for displaying interference parts enhanced by highlighting in red with 3D bounding box around the interference region (Fig. 9-10) to provide a system with extended graphic functions that reduces the cost of correcting design errors, assemblies of mechanical parts are modeled and verified electronically before the designs are sent to manufacturing (Abstract).
As per Claim 11, Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. teaches wherein the extracted component is a gear (Zhang et al.: Fig. 16 & 18 “A gear box and the shaft hole-fitted parts”: P2 of Fig. 16), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the component other than the extracted component interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (Zhang et al.: Fig. 16-18 “A gear box and the shaft hole-fitted parts”: Examiner Note – There is an interference between the gear (P2 of Fig. 16) and the shaft (P11 of Fig. 16) visible in Fig. 17(a) (value of 2 on the row of P2 intersected with the column of P11). Fig. 3, a value of 2 corresponds to hard interference between parts, i.e. penetration, not just a minor contact interference. For such a hard interference between shaft and gear to exist, the shaft must be larger than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear. As the virtual model, i.e. bounding box, is used for determining interference, and as it encloses the shaft, it is also larger than the inner diameter of the shaft hole.).
5. Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”) in view of Jayaram et al. (US 2002/0123812 A1) and further in view of Miller (US 8,706,452 B2).
Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 19-20 above.
As per Claim 6, Zhang et al. in view of Jayaram et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to, if the virtual model is determined as being interfered with a first component, generate, on the three-dimensional model, a virtual index that covers part of the first component interfering with the virtual mode (Zhang et al.: pg. 1198 “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis. These facets mostly distribute on the contacting curve surfaces between parts.”; Jayaram et: [0020] “can be assembled safely (no collisions) without interfering with other parts or environment objects and where any interferences will occur in assembly”, [0088], [0091], [0202]-[0204], [0221]-[0228]).
However, Zhang et al. in view of Jayaram et al. fails to teach explicitly the virtual index having a cylindrical shape with a predetermined radius.
Miller teaches the virtual index having a cylindrical shape with a predetermined radius (Miller: FIG. 7, Col. 8 line 39-55, “FIG. 7 shows an example defining point with its interfering sphere representation 710 and its non-interfering cylinder representation 720.”). In particular, Miller teaches a cylindrical index of a predetermined radius defined in the CAD model for interference checking, because Miller represents geometry in a CAD system as a non-interfering cylinder built with a radius to test for collisions, the cylinder being built with a radius equal to the part radius plus a clearance value.
Zhang et al., Jayaram et al. and Miller are analogous art because they are all related to a method for interference checking of assembly models.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Miller into Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al.’s invention for purpose of generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning to improve engineering design and manufacturing assembly tasks (Jayaram et al.: [0006]) and in order to represent the interfering region with a cylindrical index of a predetermined radius for clear visualization before or instead of manufacturing the physical items (Miller: col. 1 lines 19-22).
As per Claim 12, Zhang et al. in view of Jayaram et al. teaches wherein the extracted component is a gear (Zhang et al.: Fig. 16 & 18 “A gear box and the shaft hole-fitted parts”: P2 of Fig. 16), and wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the component other than the extracted component interferes with the virtual model that is larger by a predetermined size than an inner diameter of a shaft hole of the gear (Zhang et al.: Fig. 16-18 “A gear box and the shaft hole-fitted parts”: Examiner Note – There is an interference between the gear (P2 of Fig. 16) and the shaft (P11 of Fig. 16) visible in Fig. 17(a) (value of 2 on the row of P2 intersected with the column of P11). Fig. 3, a value of 2 corresponds to hard interference between parts, i.e. penetration, not just a minor contact interference. For such a hard interference between shaft and gear to exist, the shaft must be larger than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear. As the virtual model, i.e. bounding box, is used for determining interference, and as it encloses the shaft, it is also larger than the inner diameter of the shaft hole.).
6. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”), in view of Jayaram et al. (US 2002/0123812 A1) and further in view of Korbi et al. (“A CAD model for the tolerancing of mechanical assemblies considering non-rigid joints between parts with defects”) and Taguchi et al. (US 20130100153 A1).
Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 19-20 above.
As per Claim 14, Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the processor is configured to: place in the shaft hole of the gear a virtual model smaller than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear by a predetermined size; and
if the virtual model smaller than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear by the predetermined size is moved from the gear toward an upstream side in the direction of assembly by a predetermined distance, determine whether the component other than the extracted component interferes with the virtual model.
Korbi et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to: place in the shaft hole of the gear a virtual model smaller than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear by a predetermined size (Figure 11 (a) “realistic axis L’h is generated based on the feature operation concept”: generating a realistic axis of the hole from the hole feature).
Furthermore, Taguchi et al. teaches if the virtual model smaller than the inner diameter of the shaft hole of the gear by the predetermined size is moved from the gear toward an upstream side in the direction of assembly by a predetermined distance, determine whether the component other than the extracted component interferes with the virtual model ([0122] –[0126] “uniformly moves a model by a constant amount to make the interference judgment between models before and after the movement”, Fig. 16A-B). In particular, Taguchi moves a model by a constant amount and judges interference before and after the movement.
Zhang et al., Jayaram et al., Korbi et al. and Taguchi et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for assembly modeling.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Korbi et al. and Taguchi et al. into Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al.’s invention for purpose of generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning to improve engineering design and manufacturing assembly tasks (Jayaram et al.: [0006]) and to provide an improved method of CAD assemblies considering realistic joints between parts with defects. (Korbi et al.: Abstract), and to provide an improved system with the determination accuracy of the assembly/disassembly direction (Taguchi et al.: [0172]).
7. Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”), in view of Jayaram et al. (US 2002/0123812 A1), and further in view of Yu et al. (“Hierarchical exploded view generation based on recursive assembly sequence planning”).
Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 19-20 above.
As per Claim 16, Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. teaches acquiring the faces of a component determined to interfere with the virtual model and displaying that component distinctly (Zhang et al: pg. 1198 “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis. These facets mostly distribute on the contacting curve surfaces between parts.”; Jayaram: [0020] “can be assembled safely (no collisions) without interfering with other parts or environment objects and where any interferences will occur in assembly”, [0088], [0091], [0202]-[0204], [0221]-[0228]).
Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the processor is configured to, if faces of a first component determined as interfering with the virtual model are acquired and an angle made by the faces is smaller than a predetermined angle, display the first component having the angle smaller than the predetermined angle in a display form different from a display form of a second component not determined as interfering with the virtual model.
Yu et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to, if faces of a first component determined as interfering with the virtual model are acquired and an angle made by the faces is smaller than a predetermined angle, display the first component having the angle smaller than the predetermined angle in a display form different from a display form of a second component not determined as interfering with the virtual model (section 2.3 “The parts that may interfere the active part in Listp (such as p1 in Fig. 6) still need precise detection… search for up to N (or less than N) planar feature faces of pi, whose normal direction makes an angle of less than 60°… Using the previous example in Fig. 6, through the sweeping method and the extruding bounding face method, only p5 and p1 are left in Listp to be further detected. Now the extruding feature face method can be applied to p4, shown as Fig. 7. The part p4 has seven planar faces and two curved faces, among which only the planar face F1 meets the angle demand.”). In particular, Yu selects planar feature faces whose normal direction makes an angle below a set value with the detection direction.
Zhang et al., Jayaram et al. and Yu et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for interference checking of assembly models.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Yu et al. into Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al.’s invention for purpose of generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning to improve engineering design and manufacturing assembly tasks (Jayaram et al.: [0006]) and to provide a system which restricts the angle and number of the feature faces in order to avoid forming too many invalid or redundant extrusion features which will reduce the efficiency of analysis (Yu et al.: section 2.3).
As per Claim 17, Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to change a color of the extracted component if no other component is determined as interfering with one of an upper end and a lower end of the extracted component … (Zhang et al.: Fig. 18 “The overlapped facets between minor interfered parts in x-axis”; “Figure 18 highlights the facets corresponding to the minor interference relationships between parts in x-axis.” On the right column of Pg 1198 - Examiner Note – Fig. 18 illustrates a gear box and the shaft hole-lifted parts, and the interfering parts are highlighted in green and bule where the rest are in white; Jayaram et. al. [0020] “can be assembled safely (no collisions) without interfering with other parts or environment objects and where any interferences will occur in assembly”, [0088], [0091], [0202]-[0204], [0221]-[0228]).
Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. fails to teach explicitly in a vertical direction in a predetermined process that assembles the components.
Yu et al. teaches in a vertical direction in a predetermined process that assembles the components (Fig. 11 “A rocker assembly”).
8. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (“Generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning”) in view of Jayaram et al. (US 2002/0123812 A1), and further in view of Boussuge et al. (“APPLICATION OF TENSOR FACTORISATION TO ANALYSE SIMILARITIES IN CAD ASSEMBLY MODELS”).
Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15, and 19-20 above.
As per Claim 18, Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al. fails to teach explicitly wherein the processor is configured to: extract a similar component within a predetermined range of similarity with respect to the extracted component; and change a color of the similar component.
Boussuge et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
extract a similar component within a predetermined range of similarity with respect to the extracted component (Figure 3-4, section 4-5); and
change a color of the similar component (Figure 3-4: similar entities to solid 78 is in red color).
Zhang et al., Jayaram et al and Boussuge et al. are analogous art because they are all related to a method for interference checking of assembly models.
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Boussuge et al. into Zhang et al. as modified by Jayaram et al.’s invention for purpose of generating interference matrices for automatic assembly sequence planning to improve engineering design and manufacturing assembly tasks (Jayaram et al.: [0006]) and to provide a system which demonstrating how to efficiently look for similarity in the CAD models therefore to reduce the currently tedious and highly manual tasks when extracting and preparing simulation analysis models from a large assembly model (Boussuge et al.: left column of Pg 2).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed on 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument – in view of Jayaram et al.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights