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 .
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.
Joint Inventors
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.
invention.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). A certified copy of this document has been placed in the file wrapper. As such, the effective filing date of the instant application is considered 03/18/2020, coinciding with the filing date of the Japan application to which foreign priority was requested.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/29/2025 and 11/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 12, 21, and 23 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection has been withdrawn and an updated 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been presented below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection and finds them moot given the updated claim language and mapping presented below, which was necessitated by amendment.
Applicant contends that the applied art does not teach or suggest that the control device is configured to compare a tilt of the detector with a threshold and adjust the posture of the first robot to reduce the tilt when the tilt exceeds the threshold, and the tilt is an angle between a first perpendicular direction and a second perpendicular direction, the first perpendicular direction is perpendicular to an arrangement direction of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors and the second perpendicular direction is perpendicular to a surface of the weld portion. Examiner finds this contention moot considering the withdrawal of the previous rejection and updated rejections presented below.
Applicant next contends that Takesute does not disclose that "the first posture data is generated based on second posture data of a posture when a second robot performs a second task on the first member" as claimed. Instead, Takesute only describes that the welded portions are inspected, and there is no disclosure regarding how the posture of the manipulator is determined. only describes that the welded portions are inspected, and that there is no disclosure regarding how the posture of the manipulator is determined or further used. Examiner disagrees, and points to the Takesute mapping presented in the last office action, namely pg. 3, lines 3-8 and pg 6-7, lines 46-5, which outline a process of weld position determination in a welding device based on previous position data obtained by the inspection device.
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.
Claims 12- 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takesute et al. (JPH06265529A, referred to as Takesute) in view of Sakamoto et al. (JPH10216955A, referred to as Sakamoto).
Regarding claim 12: Takesute discloses: A control device, comprising: circuitry configured to: receive first posture data of a posture of a first robot, ([pg. 3, lines 3-8] The thin ultrasonic focused beam, the information for each small range of corona bond part and the nugget boundary of the spot weld, because it can be a continuous intensity distribution, by detecting the intensity increase of the reflected wave intensity distribution, against a very small gap between the corona bond portion, the position where the effect on the transmission intensity of the ultrasound is eliminated, ie, the boundary between the corona bond portion and the nugget can be accurately evaluated. [pg. 3, lines 28-34] obtained with the reflected wave intensity from the upper and joint surface of the lower plate of the spot welded portion of each transmit and receive positions, the reflected wave intensity from the bottom surface of the spot welding subordinates plate, both of the two intensity distribution curve in the side, between the two points where both curves intersect each toward the inward direction of the spot welds is first reflected wave from the joint surface of the upper plate and the lower plate from the reflected wave intensity of the lower plate the bottom surface of each receiving position calculating an integral value of a value obtained by subtracting the intensity, so to evaluate the spot weld from this integrated value, knowing the boundary between nugget corona bond part as well, presence and overall bonding state of defects in the nugget the can check to double.), including a first manipulator and a first end effector, the first end effector including a detector with a plurality of ultrasonic sensors; and ([pg. 3, lines 13-16] Further, an ultrasonic wave transmitting element and an ultrasonic , by adopting a two-probe method; arranged to sandwich the upper plate and the lower plate of the spot welded portion, the upper plate surface to be received by the single probe method It can eliminate the influence of the reflected wave from permits optimum assessment of the thin plate of the spot welds.) set the posture of the first robot based on the first posture data and cause the first robot to perform a first task on a first member, wherein the first posture data is generated based on second posture data of a posture when a second robot performs a second task on the first member, ([pg. 6-7, lines 46-5] If the results of evaluation of the spot weld is good (YES), spot welding machine 20 performs the spot welding of the next target parts. If it is defective (NO), the robot 22 is moved to the position (d) from the current position (c) (not the robot 22 is moved, the upper may be rotated), and the defective portion side spot welding carried out. And, by the ultrasonic inspection machine 21, perform an ultrasonic inspection of spot welds. Re-welding, re-examined the repeated N times, still when it is determined still spot welds to be defective, to stop a series of operations, electrode wear condition etc. of the spot welding machine 20, a check of the spot welding conditions do.) wherein the second robot includes a second manipulator and a second end effector, wherein the second end effector includes a welding device performing welding, wherein, in a case where the second task is performed, the second end effector of the second robot with the posture set based on the second posture data contacts a first position of the first member, and wherein, in a case where the first task is performed, the first end effector of the first robot with the posture set based on the first posture data contacts the first position, ([pg. 6, lines 43-49] FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. Spot welded parts 24, installation and comes to the position riding on the belt conveyor 23 (a), inspection machine 21 and the spot welder 20 and the welding robot 22 (welding machine 20 ultrasound machine 21 are incorporated separately also good) spot welding machine 20 is actuated of, and carry out the spot welding of a predetermined location. After this, the target component 24 proceeds to the position (b), by the ultrasonic inspection machine 21, perform the inspection of spot welds. Detection of the ultrasound system 21 is preferably used after mounting the electronic scanning ultrasonic probe shown in FIG. 12 (b) the hand of the robot 22.) wherein, in the first task, the control device is configured to cause the first robot to acquire information of a weld portion that was welded using the detector, the information including a reflected wave intensity of an ultrasonic wave from the weld portion, ([pg. 1-2] The above object is also a means for in time the focal point of the ultrasonic focused beam of the upper surface and the lower plate bottom face of the spot weld, scan the ultrasonic focused beam across the spot welded portion in a radial direction and means for, and the means to obtain the strength of the bottom reflected wave of spot welding subordinates plate of transmitting and receiving ultrasonic waves with respect to the spot welds in accordance with the said scanning each sending and receiving position, both of the reflected wave intensity distribution with respect to the sending and receiving position means the intensity detects the scanning distance between two points of intensity position to be a predetermined ratio of the maximum intensity in the side, from the scanning distance between the two points by providing a means for evaluating a spot weld is achieved . [pg. 6, lines 43-49] FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. Spot welded parts 24, installation and comes to the position riding on the belt conveyor 23 (a), inspection machine 21 and the spot welder 20 and the welding robot 22 (welding machine 20 ultrasound machine 21 are incorporated separately also good) spot welding machine 20 is actuated of, and carry out the spot welding of a predetermined location. After this, the target component 24 proceeds to the position (b), by the ultrasonic inspection machine 21, perform the inspection of spot welds. Detection of the ultrasound system 21 is preferably used after mounting the electronic scanning ultrasonic probe shown in FIG. 12 (b) the hand of the robot 22.) [wherein the control device is configured to compare a tilt of the detector with a threshold and adjust the posture of the first robot to reduce the tilt when the tilt exceeds the threshold, wherein the tilt is an angle between a first perpendicular direction and a second perpendicular direction, the first perpendicular direction is perpendicular to an arrangement direction of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors and a second perpendicular direction that is perpendicular to a surface of the weld portion, the tilt being calculated using the information including the reflected wave intensity.]
Takesute does not explicitly disclose: wherein the control device is configured to compare a tilt of the detector with a threshold and adjust the posture of the first robot to reduce the tilt when the tilt exceeds the threshold, wherein the tilt is an angle between a first perpendicular direction and a second perpendicular direction, the first perpendicular direction is perpendicular to an arrangement direction of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors and a second perpendicular direction that is perpendicular to a surface of the weld portion, the tilt being calculated using the information including the reflected wave intensity.
Takesute does not disclose the following limitations, however Sakamoto, from an analogous field of endeavor, further teaches: wherein the control device is configured to compare a tilt of the detector with a threshold and adjust the posture of the first robot to reduce the tilt when the tilt exceeds the threshold, wherein the tilt is an angle between a first perpendicular direction and a second perpendicular direction, the first perpendicular direction is perpendicular to an arrangement direction of the plurality of ultrasonic sensors and a second perpendicular direction that is perpendicular to a surface of the weld portion, the tilt being calculated using the information including the reflected wave intensity. ([pg. 2, lines 29-38] the inclination angle detection process, when using an angular deviation detecting means for detecting a relative angle deviation between the specific plane and the pseudo opposing planar surfaces, and two rotating shafts of the two orthogonal axes of a welding robot onto the pseudo opposing planar surfaces set the two orthogonal axes of parallel virtual, by detecting the relative angle deviation of about two orthogonal axes of this virtual, relative angle deviation between the pseudo facing plane and the specific plane for both the rotation axis of the welding robot There are quantitatively detected, which makes it possible to detect the inclination angle of the traveling direction of the two rotary around the electrode to the orthogonal direction of the welded portion. Then, the electrode angle correcting step, the rotational position of each rotating axis of the electrode, by the inclination angle of the respective rotational axis to change modified to be zero, in the welded portion the traveling direction of the electrode it is possible to reliably change corrected in the orthogonal direction.)
Takesute and Sakamoto are analogous art to the claimed invention since they are from the similar field of ultrasonic probe and spot welding device position control. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to modify the ultrasonic probe and spot welding device of Takesute to enable a similar device that adjusts the robot along a tilted axis in a similarly corrective iterative process as taught in Sakamoto.
The motivation for modification would have been to provide the spot detection and welding method disclosed in Takesute with the tilt adjustment taught in Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Takesute and Sakamoto teaches: The control device according to claim 12,
Takesute further discloses: wherein the control device receives a plurality of sets of the first posture data, the control device sequentially sets the posture of the first robot based on the plurality of sets of first posture data, and the control device causes the first robot to perform the first task at each of the postures. ([pg. 6-7, lines 38-2] As a result, for example, by setting the threshold to "30" - "40" of the area S, indistinguishable to that bonding strength is not obtained at all, and that the joint remains in the button shape, from the area S quality of the bonding state is to be evaluated. Figure 15 is a diagram showing an example of applying the evaluation method described above to a spot welding line, FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. … If the results of evaluation of the spot weld is good (YES), spot welding machine 20 performs the spot welding of the next target parts. If it is defective (NO), the robot 22 is moved to the position (d) from the current position (c) (not the robot 22 is moved, the upper may be rotated), and the defective portion side spot welding carried out.)
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Takesute and Sakamoto teaches: The control device according to claim 13,
Takesute further discloses: wherein the plurality of sets of first posture data is generated respectively based on a plurality of sets of the second posture data, a portion of the plurality of sets of second posture data is generated based on design posture data generated from design data of the first member, and ([pg. 5, lines 11-18] The intensity distribution curve of the above-mentioned spot weld, as shown in FIG. 6, the two probes may be obtained by the arrangement the transmission method so as to sandwich the spot welds, also the evaluation method in that case completely above is the same as the method. However, C in the range of the spot weld both sides because ultrasound does not transmit, both sides of the intensity distribution curve becomes low intensity as indicated by a dotted line in FIG. In addition, the spot weld, not only the result of evaluation by the intensity of the reflected ultrasound described in FIGS. 1 to 5, to assess from the average value of the results of the evaluation by the intensity of the transmitted ultrasonic wave shown in FIG. 6, high-accuracy evaluation of it is possible to more.) an other portion of the plurality of sets of second posture data is generated based on teaching to the second robot. ([pg. 6-7, lines 38-2] As a result, for example, by setting the threshold to "30" - "40" of the area S, indistinguishable to that bonding strength is not obtained at all, and that the joint remains in the button shape, from the area S quality of the bonding state is to be evaluated. Figure 15 is a diagram showing an example of applying the evaluation method described above to a spot welding line, FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. … If the results of evaluation of the spot weld is good (YES), spot welding machine 20 performs the spot welding of the next target parts. If it is defective (NO), the robot 22 is moved to the position (d) from the current position (c) (not the robot 22 is moved, the upper may be rotated), and the defective portion side spot welding carried out.)
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Takesute and Sakamoto teaches: The control device according to claim 12,
Takesute further discloses: wherein the first posture data is generated using the second posture data, first structure data, and second structure data, the first structure data is of a relationship between a structure of the first manipulator, a posture of a distal part of the first manipulator and the posture of the first robot, and the second structure data is of a relationship between a structure of the second manipulator, a posture of a distal part of the second manipulator, and the posture of the second robot. ([pg. 6-7, lines 38-2] As a result, for example, by setting the threshold to "30" - "40" of the area S, indistinguishable to that bonding strength is not obtained at all, and that the joint remains in the button shape, from the area S quality of the bonding state is to be evaluated. Figure 15 is a diagram showing an example of applying the evaluation method described above to a spot welding line, FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. … If the results of evaluation of the spot weld is good (YES), spot welding machine 20 performs the spot welding of the next target parts. If it is defective (NO), the robot 22 is moved to the position (d) from the current position (c) (not the robot 22 is moved, the upper may be rotated), and the defective portion side spot welding carried out.)
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Takesute and Sakamoto teaches: The control device according to claim 12,
Takesute further discloses: wherein the first member is transferred after the second task is performed by the second robot, and the control device is configured to cause the first robot to perform the first task on the transferred first member ([pg. 6-7, lines 38-2] As a result, for example, by setting the threshold to "30" - "40" of the area S, indistinguishable to that bonding strength is not obtained at all, and that the joint remains in the button shape, from the area S quality of the bonding state is to be evaluated. Figure 15 is a diagram showing an example of applying the evaluation method described above to a spot welding line, FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. … If the results of evaluation of the spot weld is good (YES), spot welding machine 20 performs the spot welding of the next target parts. If it is defective (NO), the robot 22 is moved to the position (d) from the current position (c) (not the robot 22 is moved, the upper may be rotated), and the defective portion side spot welding carried out.)
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Takesute and Sakamoto teaches: The control device according to claim 12,
Takesute further discloses: wherein the welding device of the second end effector performs spot welding, and in the first task, the first robot is caused to use the detector to acquire the information of the weld portion that was spot-welded. ([pg. 6-7, lines 38-2] As a result, for example, by setting the threshold to "30" - "40" of the area S, indistinguishable to that bonding strength is not obtained at all, and that the joint remains in the button shape, from the area S quality of the bonding state is to be evaluated. Figure 15 is a diagram showing an example of applying the evaluation method described above to a spot welding line, FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. … If the results of evaluation of the spot weld is good (YES), spot welding machine 20 performs the spot welding of the next target parts. If it is defective (NO), the robot 22 is moved to the position (d) from the current position (c) (not the robot 22 is moved, the upper may be rotated), and the defective portion side spot welding carried out.)
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Takesute and Sakamoto teaches: The control device according to claim 17,
Takesute further discloses: wherein the detector, in the first operation, contacts the first member in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the first member. ([pg. 6-7, lines 38-2] As a result, for example, by setting the threshold to "30" - "40" of the area S, indistinguishable to that bonding strength is not obtained at all, and that the joint remains in the button shape, from the area S quality of the bonding state is to be evaluated. Figure 15 is a diagram showing an example of applying the evaluation method described above to a spot welding line, FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. … If the results of evaluation of the spot weld is good (YES), spot welding machine 20 performs the spot welding of the next target parts. If it is defective (NO), the robot 22 is moved to the position (d) from the current position (c) (not the robot 22 is moved, the upper may be rotated), and the defective portion side spot welding carried out.)
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Takesute and Sakamoto teaches: An inspection system, comprising: the control device according to claim 17;
Takesute further discloses: and a processing device, the processing device using the information to perform an inspection of the weld portion or a calculation of the tilt of the detector. ([pg. 4-5, lines 50-10] When scanning of the ultrasound focusing beam 1 is completed, an increase rate calculating circuit 13, as shown in FIG. 5, the intensity data X1~XN stored in the memory circuit 12, the arithmetic processing rate of increase is read from the X1 side (dP / dX) is performed to obtain a curve of X1 → XN in FIG. At this time, since the negative rate of increase is not to detect, increase rate on the intensity distribution curve to know first corresponds to the position S becomes zero X1 → XN position data XS on the curve. Then contrary to the above, the increase rate calculating circuit 13, the intensity data X1~XN stored in the memory circuit 12, performs arithmetic processing rate of increase is read from XN side (dP / dX), the intensity of FIG. 5 rate of increase on the opposite side on the distribution curve to know the position data XE on the first corresponding to the position E to be zero to XN → X1 curve. Scanning distance calculation circuit 14, the calculated two of each scanning distance between the first and the XS that the rate of increase is zero XE of the curve (XS-XE), displayed as numerical values or image on the display unit 15. This distance is to the diameter of the nugget A. Of course, like if there is an influence of unevenness of the spot weld surface, when the correction is necessary, the added predetermined constant value of the calculated nugget diameter value and nugget diameter.)
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Takesute and Sakamoto teaches: The inspection system according to claim 19,
Takesute further discloses: further comprising: the first robot. ([pg. 6, lines 43-49] FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. Spot welded parts 24, installation and comes to the position riding on the belt conveyor 23 (a), inspection machine 21 and the spot welder 20 and the welding robot 22 (welding machine 20 ultrasound machine 21 are incorporated separately also good) spot welding machine 20 is actuated of, and carry out the spot welding of a predetermined location. After this, the target component 24 proceeds to the position (b), by the ultrasonic inspection machine 21, perform the inspection of spot welds. Detection of the ultrasound system 21 is preferably used after mounting the electronic scanning ultrasonic probe shown in FIG. 12 (b) the hand of the robot 22.)
Regarding claim 21: Rejected using the same rationale as claim 12.
Regarding claim 22: The combination of Takesute and Sakamoto teaches: The control method according to claim 21,
Takesute further discloses: wherein the welding device of the second end effector performs spot welding, and in the first task, the first robot is caused to use the detector to acquire the information of the weld portion that was spot-welded. ([pg. 6-7, lines 46-5] If the results of evaluation of the spot weld is good (YES), spot welding machine 20 performs the spot welding of the next target parts. If it is defective (NO), the robot 22 is moved to the position (d) from the current position (c) (not the robot 22 is moved, the upper may be rotated), and the defective portion side spot welding carried out. And, by the ultrasonic inspection machine 21, perform an ultrasonic inspection of spot welds. Re-welding, re-examined the repeated N times, still when it is determined still spot welds to be defective, to stop a series of operations, electrode wear condition etc. of the spot welding machine 20, a check of the spot welding conditions do. [pg. 6, lines 43-49] FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. Spot welded parts 24, installation and comes to the position riding on the belt conveyor 23 (a), inspection machine 21 and the spot welder 20 and the welding robot 22 (welding machine 20 ultrasound machine 21 are incorporated separately also good) spot welding machine 20 is actuated of, and carry out the spot welding of a predetermined location. After this, the target component 24 proceeds to the position (b), by the ultrasonic inspection machine 21, perform the inspection of spot welds. Detection of the ultrasound system 21 is preferably used after mounting the electronic scanning ultrasonic probe shown in FIG. 12 (b) the hand of the robot 22.)
Regarding claim 23: Rejected using the same rationale as claims 12 and 21, however further directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer readable instructions thereon”, which is further disclosed by Takesute: non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer readable instructions thereon ([pg. 4, lines 48-50] When scanning of the ultrasound focusing beam 1 is completed, an increase rate calculating circuit 13, as shown in FIG. 5, the intensity data X1~XN stored in the memory circuit 12, the arithmetic processing rate of increase is read from the X1 side (dP / dX) is performed to obtain a curve of X1 → XN
Regarding claim 24: The combination of Takesute and Sakamoto teaches: The storage medium according to claim 23,
Takesute further discloses: wherein the welding device of the second end effector performs spot welding, and in the first task, the control device causes the first robot to use the detector to acquire the information of the weld portion that was spot-welded. ([pg. 6-7, lines 38-2] As a result, for example, by setting the threshold to "30" - "40" of the area S, indistinguishable to that bonding strength is not obtained at all, and that the joint remains in the button shape, from the area S quality of the bonding state is to be evaluated. Figure 15 is a diagram showing an example of applying the evaluation method described above to a spot welding line, FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. … If the results of evaluation of the spot weld is good (YES), spot welding machine 20 performs the spot welding of the next target parts. If it is defective (NO), the robot 22 is moved to the position (d) from the current position (c) (not the robot 22 is moved, the upper may be rotated), and the defective portion side spot welding carried out. [pg. 6, lines 43-49] FIG. 16 is a flow chart showing a processing procedure. Spot welded parts 24, installation and comes to the position riding on the belt conveyor 23 (a), inspection machine 21 and the spot welder 20 and the welding robot 22 (welding machine 20 ultrasound machine 21 are incorporated separately also good) spot welding machine 20 is actuated of, and carry out the spot welding of a predetermined location. After this, the target component 24 proceeds to the position (b), by the ultrasonic inspection machine 21, perform the inspection of spot welds. Detection of the ultrasound system 21 is preferably used after mounting the electronic scanning ultrasonic probe shown in FIG. 12 (b) the hand of the robot 22.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, and not relied upon, considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure or directed to the state of art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTICUS A CAMERON whose telephone number is 703-756-4535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Thomas Worden can be reached on 571-272-4876. 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.
/ATTICUS A CAMERON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3658A /JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights