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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action has been issued in response to amendment filed 05/18/2023. Applicant's arguments have been carefully and fully considered; and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 have been amended. Claims 16-17 have been added. Claims 1-17 remain pending and are ready for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (US20130223946A1 -hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a machining tool for machining a workpiece, comprising:
- a main spindle with a driven shank, (see [0002]; Yamamoto: “a spindle and a servomotor”)
- a tool holder configured to be clamped into the shank, (see [0105]; Yamamoto: “an attachment 38;”)
- a cutting tool which is arranged on the tool holder, (see [0105]; Yamamoto: “a tool 39 mounted to the spindle 37 through an attachment 38;”)
- a distance sensor for determining a distance of the shank of the main spindle to a reference point, and (see [0108]; Yamamoto: “The position detector 42 is a general induction linear scale which is formed of a slider 42 a and a scale 42 b.”)
- a control unit which is arranged to perform compensation of the tool path when machining the workpiece based on an elongation and displacement of the shank and an elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool, (see [0005]; Yamamoto: “Based on pieces of temperature data measured with these temperature sensors 11, the amount of thermal displacement of the machine is predicted using a simple calculation equation, and a mechanical coordinate or the like is then shifted by that displacement amount. As a result, the mechanical displacement amount is compensated.”)
- wherein the elongation and displacement of the shank is determined based on the distance determined with the distance sensor, and (see [0114]; Yamamoto: “The position-detector thermal-displacement-amount calculation unit 53 calculates an amount ΔL1 of thermal displacement of the position detector 42 (scale 42 b) in the X-axis direction on the basis of the temperature data a6 on the position detector 42 (scale 42 b) received by the position-detector temperature-data input unit 52.”)
- wherein the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool is determined based on a rotational speed of the shank. (see [0129]; Yamamoto: “The derivative computation unit 69 computes the derivative of the rotational angle of the servomotor 74 detected by the pulse coder 77 with respect to time to find the rotational speed of the servomotor 74.”)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Yamamoto further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine a temperature of the shank at a clamping point of the tool holder in the main spindle based on distance values of the distance sensor and on the rotational speed of the shank and therefrom to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool and/or (see [0005]; Yamamoto: “In this thermal displacement correction system, temperature sensors 11 are buried in given parts (a column 12, a saddle 13, a head 14, a table 16, a workpiece W, and a bed 18) of the machine. Based on pieces of temperature data measured with these temperature sensors 11, the amount of thermal displacement of the machine is predicted using a simple calculation equation, and a mechanical coordinate or the like is then shifted by that displacement amount. As a result, the mechanical displacement amount is compensated.”)
wherein the control unit is configured to determine a temperature of the shank based on a speed curve of the shank over time and/or the curve of the distance values of the distance sensor over time and therefrom to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool. (see [0120]; Yamamoto: “In Part (a) of FIG. 3, the horizontal axis represents the position [m] of the table 32 in the X-axis direction, while the vertical axis represents the temperature T [° C.] of the table 32. In Part (b) of FIG. 3, the horizontal axis represents the position [m] of the table 32 in the X-axis direction, while the vertical axis represents the thermal displacement amount δ[μm/m] of the table 32 per unit length.”)
Regarding Claim 8, Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Yamamoto further teaches: further comprising a second temperature sensor, which determines a second temperature of the shank (see [0148]; Yamamoto: “The spindle-system temperature-data input unit 92 receives …the temperature data a10 on the spindle bearing 40 outputted from the spindle-bearing temperature sensor 41-10“), wherein the control unit is arranged to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool based on the second temperature detected and/or on a course of the second temperature detected over time. (see [0150]; Yamamoto: “Moreover, the spindle-system thermal-displacement-amount calculation unit 93 calculates the amount of thermal displacement of the spindle bearing 40 in the X-axis direction by substituting, into Equation (1) mentioned above, the linear expansion coefficient β of the spindle bearing 40, the temperature difference ΔT between the reference temperature T0 and the temperature data T on the spindle bearing 40 (the temperature data a10 of the spindle-bearing temperature sensor 41-10), and the object effective length L of the spindle bearing 40.”)
Regarding Claim 9, Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Yamamoto further teaches: further comprising a third temperature sensor which is arranged on a bearing of the shank and which determines a third temperature of the bearing (see [0148]; Yamamoto: “The spindle-system temperature-data input unit 92 receives …the temperature data a8 on the saddle 35 outputted from the saddle temperature sensor 41-8.”), wherein the control unit is configured to determine a temperature of the shank based on the third temperature of the bearing and/or a course of the third temperature of the bearing over time and therefrom to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool. (see [0150]; Yamamoto: “Moreover, the spindle-system thermal-displacement-amount calculation unit 93 calculates the amount of thermal displacement of the saddle 35 in the X-axis direction by substituting, into Equation (1) mentioned above, the linear expansion coefficient β of the saddle 35, the temperature difference ΔT between the reference temperature T0 and the temperature data T on the saddle 35 (the temperature data a8 of the saddle temperature sensor 41-8), and the object effective length L of the saddle 35.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Yamamoto further teaches further comprising a fourth temperature sensor, which detects a fourth temperature of a working space of the machining tool (see [0107]; Yamamoto: “Moreover, multiple (five in the illustrated example) table temperature sensors 41-1, 41-2, 41-3, 41-4, and 41-5 are disposed in the table 32. These table temperature sensors 41-1 to 41-5 are arranged in given portions of the table 32 at equal intervals in the X-axis direction. Thus, the table temperature sensors 41-1 to 41-5 detect the temperatures of the given portions of the table 32 and output pieces of detected temperature data a1, a2, a3, a4, and a5 to the machine tool's displacement correction device 51 (see FIG. 2; details will be described later), respectively.”), wherein the control unit is configured to determine elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool based on the fourth temperature of the working space and/or a course of the fourth temperature of the working space over time. (see [0143]; Yamamoto: “it is possible to evaluate the amount of the thermal displacement of the table system (column 33→position detector 42→table 32) and of the spindle system (column 33→cross rail 34→saddle 35→ram 36→spindle bearing 40→spindle 37) with the column front surface 33 a serving as the reference position XK.”)
Regarding Claim 12, Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above, Yamamoto further teaches further comprising a fifth temperature sensor, which detects a fifth temperature of the distance sensor and/or a time course of the fifth temperature of the distance sensor (see [0082]; Yamamoto: “the position detector which detects the position of the table in the X-axis direction.”), wherein the control unit is configured to determine a temperature of the shank and therefrom the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool, based on the fifth temperature of the distance sensor. (see [0113]; Yamamoto: “The position-detector temperature-data input unit 52 receives the temperature data a6 on the position detector 42 (scale 42 b) outputted from the position-detector temperature sensor 41-6.”)
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations in this claim is taught by Yamamoto as discussed connection with claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-7, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Shivaswamy et al. (US20040066831A1 -hereinafter Shivaswamy).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach: further comprising a measuring device which determines a length of the tool holder with the cutting tool before start of machining, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the elongation and displacement of the shank and the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool based on a value measured using the measuring device.
Shivaswamy from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches further comprising a measuring device, in particular a measuring laser, which determines a length of the tool holder using the cutting tool before start of machining, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the elongation and displacement of the shank and the elongation of the tool holder holding the cutting tool based on the value measured using the measuring device. (see [0045]; Shivaswamy: “A linear position measurement device 120, such as a model HP5529A laser measuring device sold by Agilent Technologies of Palo Alto, Calif., is installed at a front end of the rail 42 and aligned with a second rail axis “X2”, which such second rail axis “X2” is parallel to the “X” axis of the bed 20, to measure the position of the head 60 relative to the rail 42 therealong.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Yamamoto to include Shivaswamy’s features of comprising a measuring device, in particular a measuring laser, which determines a length of the tool holder using the cutting tool before start of machining, wherein the control unit is configured to determine the elongation and displacement of the shank and the elongation of the tool holder holding the cutting tool based on the value measured using the measuring device. Doing so would using the machine's “effective” thermal coefficient to calibrate the motion of the machine to compensate for the thermal characteristics thereof. (Shivaswamy, [0017])
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach: wherein the control unit is arranged to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool based on a first temperature of the tool holder with the cutting tool prior to the start of machining.
Shivaswamy from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the control unit is arranged to determine the elongation of the tool holder using the cutting tool based on a first temperature of the tool holder holding the cutting tool prior to the start of machining. (see [0003]-[0010]; Shivaswamy: “a machine member of a long-travel machine tool—such as an elongate rail upon which another machine member rides—constructed out of steel and having a fixed length L, will change linearly in length due to changes in the temperature thereof an amount equal to:
ΔL=L·αΔT (1) where:
ΔL=a change in length of the member,
L=an initial length of the member at an initial temperature Ti thereof;
…As such, thermal expansion measurements and calculations typically are performed with reference to the initial temperature Ti of the machine member being 68° F. (20° C.)”)
The same motivation to combine the combination of Yamamoto and Shivaswamy a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yamamoto and Shivaswamy teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above, Shivaswamy further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the first temperature of the tool holder with the cutting tool prior to start of machining from a holding time of the tool holder with the cutting tool in the tool changer ever since the last clamping on the shank main spindle. (see 0010]; Shivaswamy: “The value of the thermal coefficient α for most materials is considered by those skilled in the art to be constant through a wide range of temperatures, including standard “room” temperature of 68° F. (20° C.), which is accepted by those skilled in the art as being a suitable (albeit generalized) baseline temperature for most thermal expansion calculations. As such, thermal expansion measurements and calculations typically are performed with reference to the initial temperature T i of the machine member being 68° F. (20° C.). For convenience, “textbook” values of common thermal coefficients a which are based on an initial temperature of 68° F. (20° C.) are used typically in performing these calculations.”)
The same motivation to combine the combination of Yamamoto and Shivaswamy a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Yamamoto and Shivaswamy teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above, Shivaswamy further teaches further comprising a first temperature sensor which determines a first temperature of the tool holder with cutting tool prior to start of machining (see [0043]; Shivaswamy: “One or more temperature sensors 110, such as, for example, conventional thermocouples, are installed at various locations across the bed 20, the rails 40, 42 and the machining head 60.” See [0003]-[0010]: “As such, thermal expansion measurements and calculations typically are performed with reference to the initial temperature Ti of the machine member being 68° F. (20° C.)”)”), wherein the control unit is arranged to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool based on the first temperature before start of machining. (see [0003]-[0010]; Shivaswamy: “a machine member of a long-travel machine tool—such as an elongate rail upon which another machine member rides—constructed out of steel and having a fixed length L, will change linearly in length due to changes in the temperature thereof an amount equal to:
ΔL=L·αΔT (1) where:
ΔL=a change in length of the member,
L=an initial length of the member at an initial temperature Ti thereof.”)
The same motivation to combine the combination of Yamamoto and Shivaswamy a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Yamamoto and Shivaswamy teaches all the limitations of claim 6 above, Shivaswamy further teaches wherein the first temperature sensor is arranged below the main spindle adjacent to a clamping point of the tool holder in the shank and/or wherein the first temperature sensor is movable below the main spindle near the clamping point of the tool holder in the main spindle for measuring the first temperature of the tool holder clamped on the shank using a travel unit and/or wherein the first temperature sensor is arranged in a tool changer of the machining tool to measure the first temperature of the tool holder using the cutting tool prior to clamping the tool holder onto the shank. (see Fig. 2 and [0043]; Shivaswamy: “One or more temperature sensors 110, such as, for example, conventional thermocouples, are installed at various locations across the bed 20, the rails 40, 42 and the machining head 60.” See [0003]-[0010]: “As such, thermal expansion measurements and calculations typically are performed with reference to the initial temperature Ti of the machine member being 68° F. (20° C.)”)”)
The same motivation to combine the combination of Yamamoto and Shivaswamy a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitations in this claim is taught by the combination of Yamamoto and Shivaswamy as discussed connection with claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Yamamoto and Shivaswamy teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above, Shivaswamy further teaches wherein the measuring device is a measuring laser. (see [0045]; Shivaswamy: “A linear position measurement device 120, such as a model HP5529A laser measuring device sold by Agilent Technologies of Palo Alto, Calif.”)
The same motivation to combine the combination of Yamamoto and Shivaswamy a set forth for Claim 2 equally applies to Claim 17.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Hwang et al. (US20180178339A1 -hereinafter Hwang -Note: IDS reference filed 09/28/2022).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool based on a geometry of the tool holder, and/or wherein the control unit is configured to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool, based on a geometry of the cutting tool.
Hwang from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the control unit is configured to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool based on a geometry of the tool holder, and/or wherein the control unit is configured to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool, based on a geometry of the cutting tool. (see [0035]; Hwang: “By combining the two positioning points 41, it is able o obtain the speckle image positioning coordinates (Xcutter, Ycutter, i, Zcutter, j) of the cutter holding unit 95 positioned on the second positioning base 3. From the speckle image positioning coordinates (Xobject, i, Yobject, Zobject) of the object holding unit 94 positioned on the first positioning base 1 and the speckle image positioning coordinates (Xcutter, Ycutter, i, Zcutter, j) of the cutter holding unit 95 positioned on the second positioning base 3 plus the mounting size and orientation of the first adjustment bracket 5, the second adjustment bracket 6 and the third adjustment bracket 61, it is able to obtain the absolute positioning coordinates of a geometric center of the object holding unit 94 relative to the first positioning base 1 as well as the absolute positioning coordinates of a geometric center of the cutter holding unit 95 relative to the second positioning base 3.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Yamamoto to include Hwang’s features of the control unit is configured to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool based on a geometry of the tool holder, and/or wherein the control unit is configured to determine the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool, based on a geometry of the cutting tool. Doing so would avoid reduced positioning accuracy due to the thermal expansion of the multi-axis machine tool. (Hwang, [0001])
Claims 14 contains similar limitations to those in claims 7-12 are rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Shiba et al. (US20010005800A1 -hereinafter Shiba).
Regarding Claim 15, Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 13 above, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach: wherein for determining the elongation and displacement of the shank and/or the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool, data history of previous machining operations, in which data history the elongation and displacement of the shank and/or the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool were determined, are incorporated.
Shiba from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein for determining the elongation and displacement of the shank and/or the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool, data history of previous machining operations, in which data history the elongation and displacement of the shank and/or the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool were determined, are incorporated. (see [0052]; Shiba: “The lost motion analyzer 45 refers to, and stores for adequate periods, the data Dx, Dy, Ex, and Ey stored in the memories 21 and 23, and such a target position Pp {Xp= X(tp), Yp=Y(tp), where tp is a time representing a previous position control cycle (hereafter called “previous cycle”)} in the previous cycle, target positions Pc and Ps in the current and subsequent cycles, and X-axis and Y-axis lost motion correction values Lcx and Lcy in the current and subsequent cycles that are stored in the X-axis interpolator 42 and the Y-axis interpolator 43. Then, for supporting the lost motion correction, the analyzer 45 performs necessary analysis operations (for example, prediction of X-axis components and Y-axis components of a real position and a real speed of the table 5 in the subsequent cycle) and decision operations (for example, decision on the type of interpolation, decision on a dynamical type of lost motion error, i.e., whether dynamic lost motion error or stationary lost motion error, and discrimination of the sense of movement in a linear interpolation).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Yamamoto to include Shiba’s features of determining the elongation and displacement of the shank and/or the elongation of the tool holder with cutting tool, data history of previous machining operations, in which history the elongation and displacement of the shank and/or the elongation of the tool holder holding the cutting tool were determined, are incorporated. Doing so would allow a necessary precision for processing to be kept by measuring lost motion errors with their dynamical properties in view, even with a moderated measuring precision. (Shiba, [0013])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on page 12 of the Amendment:
“First, with respect to the claimed "distance sensor for determining a distance of the shank of the main spindle to a reference point," the Office cites to position detector 42. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this position. The position detector 42 is directed to measuring distances with respect to the bed 31/table 32 in the X-direction, not distances with respect to the spindle in the Z-direction.”
The Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not deemed persuasive.
Examiner respectfully would like to remind applicant that the rejections are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitations. Claims are directed to “a distance of the shank of the main spindle to a reference point”. The claims do not recite “the distances with respect to the spindle in the Z-direction”. If Applicant intents to claim “the distances with respect to the spindle in the Z-direction”, then it should be expressly recited in the claims.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on page 13 of the Amendment:
“Further, with respect to the requirement of claim 1 that "the elongation of the tool holder with the cutting tool is determined based on a rotational speed of the shank", the Office cites Yamamoto paragraph [0129]. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this position.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yamamoto [0129] discloses finding the rotational speed of the servomotor while Yamamoto [0002] discloses “mechanical displacement is caused by heat sources such as a spindle and a servomotor 2 given inside the machine and changes in ambient temperature.” Therefore, the mechanical displacement of the spindle is related to the rotational speed of the servomotor.
With respect to applicant’s argument located on page 15 of the Amendment:
“The Office cites to Shivaswamy in rejecting claim 2, particularly linear position measurement device 120 "to measure the position of the head 60 relative to the rail 42 therealong." Applicant respectfully disagrees with this position.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Shivaswamy ([0039]-[0040] and Fig. 2) includes the machining head 60 includes the spindle 90 is adapted to hold a conventional cutting tool 93. Therefore, the measured position between the head and the rail still reads on the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Keizo (JP3176528B2) discloses storing a relationship between the displacement and the spindle rotation speed.
Koike (US20220281019A1) discloses the acceleration sensor 14 is attached to the shank portion 11, it is possible to acquire, based on the measurement results of the acceleration sensor 14, the physical quantities such as the displacement amount at the attaching position of the acceleration sensor 14 including the displacement amounts of the tool holder 210, and the spindle 220 that applies a rotational force to the tool holder 210 in the machine tool 202, and the rotary cutting resistance that the shank portion 11 receives from the rotary cutting object.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VI N TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1108. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
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, ROBERT FENNEMA can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/V.N.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117