Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A method of making a cutting blade.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one work cell with two laser heads with different focal optics must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. US11172611B2 in view of US20150319923A1 Stoffel.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claims are broader in at least one aspect and also recite additional features not claimed in the patent claims.
Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer.
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claims, the following comparison between the patent claims and the application claims highlights what elements have been excluded in the presentation of the application claims.
Patent
Instant Application
1. A method for forming a blade for mounting on a rotor of a cutting machine for cutting vegetation comprising:
defining on a blade body a cutting edge;
the blade body being formed of a base material;
applying at least one strip of cladding material to the blade body at the cutting edge so as to provide at least one part of the cutting edge which has the cladding material thereon;
the cladding material having a resistance to wear greater than that of the base material;
and applying heat energy to the cutting edge at a plurality of spaced locations along the cutting edge so as to remove away portions of the cutting edge to form a series of recessed pockets along the cutting edge at the locations.
12. The method according to claim 1
wherein the blade member has one flat surface and one chamfered surface converging toward the flat surface at the cutting edge and the cladding material is applied on the flat surface.
1. A method for forming a blade for mounting on a rotor of a cutting machine for cutting vegetation comprising:
forming a chamfered surface on a blade body to define a cutting edge of the blade body;
the blade body being formed of a base material;
applying at least one strip of cladding material to the blade body at the cutting edge so as to provide at least one part of the cutting edge which has the cladding material thereon;
the cladding material having a resistance to wear greater than that of the base material;
said at least one strip being applied in a direction longitudinal of the cutting edge so that said at least one strip has a length extending along the cutting edge and a width extending from a first side edge of said at least one strip at the cutting edge and a second side edge spaced from said cutting edge;
and applying heat energy to the cutting edge at a plurality of spaced locations along the cutting edge so as to remove away portions of the cutting edge to form a series of recessed pockets along the cutting edge at the locations.
Thus, it is apparent that the more specific patent claims 1 and 12 encompass application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has once been granted a patent containing a claim for the specific or narrower invention, applicant may not then obtain a second patent with a claim for the generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Note that since application claim 1 is anticipated by patent claims 1 and 12, respectively, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claims 1 and 2 are obvious over patent claims 1 and 12, respectively.
With respect to the additional features recited in the application claims, the inclusion of said at least one strip being applied in a direction longitudinal of the cutting edge so that said at least one strip has a length extending along the cutting edge and a width extending from a first side edge of said at least one strip at the cutting edge and a second side edge spaced from said cutting edge is an obvious improvement in view of US20130233145A1 Sotelo. Sotelo teaches said at least one strip being applied in a direction longitudinal of the cutting edge so that said at least one strip has a length extending along the cutting edge and a width extending from a first side edge of said at least one strip at the cutting edge and a second side edge spaced from said cutting edge (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g). Since the patent claims recite applying at least one strip of cladding material to the blade body at the cutting edge so as to provide at least one part of the cutting edge which has
the cladding material thereon and Sotelo teaches that each layer 244 a-g is laid in a different location and spacing from the end tip, with adjacent layers in contact and thereby partial overlap (Sotelo par. 52 and figs. 19 a through g), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply a strip of cladding in a longitudinal direction to a cutting edge as taught by Sotelo for the purpose of creating a hardened cutting surface.
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 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12-20 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.
Claims 3 recites the limitation "uses the same laser". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the recitation of “wherein the laser comprises one work cell with two laser heads with different focal optics” is unclear because claim 3 and 13 of which claims 4 and 14 depend limits the structure of the invention to one laser. The examiner interprets to laser heads to mean two sections of a laser path with different focal optics.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the recitation of “wherein the laser comprises one work cell” is unclear as to the structure limitations required for a laser to comprise a work cell. A work cell is interpreted by the examiner to be a section or area.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 recites the limitation "wherein the laser comprises". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 11, the recitation of “said at least one strip comprises two strips” is unclear because the applicant already identified that there could be more than one strip and is further attempting to limit the at least one strip to containing two strips rather than disclosing that there are two or a plurality of the strips thereby creating a range within a range. The interpretation is that there are multiple strips and that the one at least one strip is meant to be two strips on each side making a total of 4 strips.
Regarding both claims 8 and 11 examiner recommends changing the "two strips..." limitation to state, “wherein the at least one strip comprises a second strip arranged on a surface opposed to the chamfered surface that forms the cutting edge." or something to that effect.
Claims 12-20 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 16, 17,and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130233145A1 Sotelo in view of US11724322B2 Smith.
Regarding claim 1,
Sotelo teaches forming cladding on a cutting edge of a serrated blade with serrations, cutting edge segments 50, already present, which are mixer blades 112, 212, and 224, and also teaches, except where struck through, A method for forming a blade (mixer blades 112, 212, and 224) for mounting on a rotor of a cutting machine for cutting vegetation (abstract) (Sotelo par. 61) comprising:
forming a chamfered surface (end tip 242) on a blade body (cutting blade 224) to define a cutting edge of the blade body (par. 50 teaches “The sharpened end tip 242 provides along with the converging surfaces 238, 240 the cutting edge support surface 236”);
the blade body being formed of a base material (par. 6 teaches steel);
applying at least one strip of cladding material (244 a to c par. 51) to the blade body at the cutting edge so as to provide at least one part of the cutting edge which has the cladding material thereon (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g);
the cladding material having a resistance to wear greater than that of the base material (par. 7);
said at least one strip being applied in a direction longitudinal of the cutting edge so that said at least one strip has a length extending along the cutting edge and a width extending from a first side edge of said at least one strip at the cutting edge and a second side edge spaced from said cutting edge (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g);
.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo does not teach: applying heat energy to the cutting edge at a plurality of spaced locations along the cutting edge so as to remove away portions of the cutting edge to form a series of recessed pockets along the cutting edge at the locations.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Smith teaches a method of manufacturing a saw blade forming a plurality of tooth bodies in the saw blade (claim 1, column 1 lines 22 to 57) and per column 8 lines 60 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 4 teach using a laser to form the cutting teeth which is applying heat energy to the cutting edge at a plurality of spaced locations along the cutting edge so as to remove away portions of the cutting edge to form a series of recessed pockets along the cutting edge at the locations. Smith indicates this is one of an equivalent number of methods (grinding, chemical, water jet) that can be utilized.
Therefore because Sotelo is silent to how the cutting teeth are formed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to try any known method as discussed in Smith, including laser cutting, in an attempt to produce an acceptable cutting edge.
Regarding claims 6 and 16,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claims 1 and 11 respectively (as discussed above)
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo does not teach: wherein said at least one strip is applied before the series of recessed pockets are cut so that the heat energy to cut the series of recessed pockets also cuts through said at least one strip.
Smith teaches methods 694, 894, and 1094 which are steps for creating a saw blade by forming tooth bodies, attaching a hardened and wear resistant surface to saw blade body, then forming further teeth on the wear resistant surface per figs. 16, 21, and 26.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of forming cutting surface profiles on non-hardened and hardened surfaces.
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by Smith teaching that the order in which cutting teeth or recessed pockets are applied can be substituted before or after a step of cladding or applying a hardened, wear resistant material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the steps of applying at least one strip is applied before the series of recessed pockets are cut so that the heat energy to cut the series of recessed pockets also cuts through said at least one strip.
The results would have been predictable, since Smith teaches in the embodiments of figs. 16, 21, and 26 a method by which coupling inserts to the saw blade body per step 726, coupling carbide strips to the saw blade body per steps 926 and 1126, then further shaping cutting inserts to include cutting teach and cutting gullets into the coupling inserts and carbide strips per steps 750, 950, and 1150 and column 9 lines 61 to 67.
Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success for the advantage to provide a hardened cutting surface.
Regarding claims 7 and 17,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claims 1 and 11 respectively (as discussed above)
Sotelo teaches forming cladding on a cutting edge of a serrated blade with serrations as cutting edge segments 50 which are already present on the mixer blades 112, 212, and 224, and therefore also teaches wherein said at least one strip is applied after the series of recessed pockets are cut so that the cladding material is discarded at the series of recessed pockets (cutting edge segments 50).
Regarding claim 8,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claims 1 (as discussed above)
Sotelo teaches, a method of laser cladding can be done over the converging surfaces as well as the end tip (Sotelo par. 61) wherein said at least one strip (244a through d) comprises two strips (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g) with one arranged on the chamfered surface (surface 240) and one arranged on an opposed surface (surface 238).
Regarding claims 9 and 18,
Sotelo teaches, The method according to claims 8 and 11 respectively (as discussed above).
Sotelo further teaches, wherein the opposed surface forms a planar side of the blade body (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g).
Regarding claims 10 and 19,
Sotelo teaches, The method according to claim 1 and 11 respectively (as discussed above).
Sotelo further teaches, wherein the chamfered surface is flat (figs. 19 a through g).
Regarding claim 11,
Sotelo teaches forming cladding on a cutting edge of a serrated blade with serrations, cutting edge segments 50, already present, which are mixer blades 112, 212, and 224, and also teaches, except where struck through, A method for forming a blade (mixer blades 112, 212, and 224) for mounting on a rotor of a cutting machine for cutting vegetation (abstract) (Sotelo par. 61) comprising:
forming a chamfered surface (end tip 242) on a blade body (cutting blade 224) to define a cutting edge of the blade body (par. 50 teaches “The sharpened end tip 242 provides along with the converging surfaces 238, 240 the cutting edge support surface 236”);
the blade body being formed of a base material (par. 6 teaches steel);
applying at least one strip of cladding material (244 a to c par. 51) to the blade body at the cutting edge so as to provide at least one part of the cutting edge which has the cladding material thereon (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g);
the cladding material having a resistance to wear greater than that of the base material (par. 7);
wherein said at least one strip comprises two strips with one arranged on the chamfered surface and one arranged on an opposed surface (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g);
and
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo does not teach: applying heat energy to the cutting edge at a plurality of spaced locations along the cutting edge so as to remove away portions of the cutting edge to form a series of recessed pockets along the cutting edge at the locations.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Smith teaches a method of manufacturing a saw blade forming a plurality of tooth bodies in the saw blade (claim 1, column 1 lines 22 to 57) and per column 8 lines 60 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 4 teach using a laser to form the cutting teeth which is applying heat energy to the cutting edge at a plurality of spaced locations along the cutting edge so as to remove away portions of the cutting edge to form a series of recessed pockets along the cutting edge at the locations.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Sotelo to create cutting teeth using a laser per the teachings of Smith per column 8 lines 60 to 67 and column 9 lines 1 to 4 of Smith.
Regarding claim 20,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claim 11 (as discussed above)
Sotelo teaches, a method of laser cladding can be done over the converging surfaces as well as the end tip (Sotelo par. 61) wherein said two strips (244 a through c and 244 d through f per figs. 19 a through g) are applied in a direction longitudinal of the cutting edge so that each strip has a length extending along the cutting edge and a width extending from a first side edge of the strip at the cutting edge and a second side edge spaced from said cutting edge (figs. 19 a through g)
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130233145A1 Sotelo in view of US11724322B2 Smith in view of US20160008920A1 Goya.
Regarding claims 2 and 12,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claims 1 and 11 respectively (as discussed above)
Sotelo further teaches wherein the blade body is mounted in a laser heating system (laser clad tool 58) and the laser heating system is used to apply the cladding material (par. 31 to 46)(claims 9, 11, 17, 20, and 27).
Smith teaches the laser heating system is used both to cut the series of recessed pockets (as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the primary combination does not teach: and the laser heating system is used both to cut the series of recessed pockets and to apply the cladding material.
Goya teaches a laser processing apparatus 10 capable of performing “one of cutting processing, boring processing, welding, cladding, surface reforming processing, surface finishing, laser lamination molding. Also, these processing can be combined” (Goya par. 47).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that to laser cut a workpiece with a laser per Smith and laser clad a workpiece per Sotelo are elements that are known in the art as being no more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions.
Therefore, the results would be predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art and based on the above findings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the performing of laser cutting and laser cladding into one work station per the teachings of Goya to allow the processing apparatus to have a simpler structure (par. 8 and 21).
Regarding claims 3 and 13,
The primary combination teaches, The method according to claims 2 and 11 respectively (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo in view of Smith does not teach: wherein the laser heating system used both to cut the recessed pockets and to apply the cladding material uses the same laser.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Goya teaches a laser processing apparatus 10 capable of performing “one of cutting processing, boring processing, welding, cladding, surface reforming processing, surface finishing, laser lamination molding. Also, these processing can be combined” (Goya par. 47) and therefore also anticipates combining the inventions of Sotelo and Smith into one apparatus such that the laser heating system used both to cut the recessed pockets and to apply the cladding material uses the same laser.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Sotelo with the combination of a laser cutting and cladding apparatus into one work station per the teachings of Goya to allow the processing apparatus to have a simpler structure (par. 8 and 21).
Regarding claims 4 and 14,
The primary combination teaches, the method according to claim 3 and 13 respectively (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo does not teach: wherein the laser comprises one work cell with two laser heads with different focal optics.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Goya teaches wherein the laser comprises one work cell (irradiation head 16) with two laser heads (laser turning unit 35 and optical system 37) with different focal optics (collimate optical system 34 and condensing system 37) .
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Sotelo with the teachings of Goya for the purpose of guiding laser light output from a guiding optical system to a workpiece (par. 59 and figs. 2 and 20).
Regarding claim 5 and 15,
The primary combination teaches, the method according to claims 3 and 13 respectively (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Sotelo does not teach: wherein the laser comprises one laser head with adjustable optics.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Goya teaches the laser comprises one laser head with adjustable optics (rotating mechanisms 53 and 54, par. 61 to 66, par. 95 and 96, and par. 108 and 109).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify Sotelo with the teachings of Goya for the purpose of changing a position of a laser irradiation point (Goya par. 66).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761