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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8, and 10-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the claim limitations of “obtaining a requested torque to be applied”, “when a reduced torque is to be applied”, and “when an increased torque is to be applied” describe a control unit which is acting on a torque command that is “imminent or in the process of being executed, and not on the results or consequences of that torque having already been applied”. The office disagrees and notes that the claim limitations of “obtaining a requested torque to be applied”, “when a reduced torque is to be applied”, and “when an increased torque is to be applied” can be interpreted as a response to a person operating the vehicle. The office suggests using “obtaining an anticipatory requested torque to be applied” or “obtaining a real-time requested torque to be applied” claim language to clearly encompass a feed-forward system which is not found in the prior art of record.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderfaas (US 20140265549) in view of Onozuka (JP 2000168641) and Wirkus (US 20140144716).
Regarding claim 1, Anderfaas teaches an idler arrangement (Fig. 1) for maintaining the desired tension in an endless track 4 ([0008]), said endless track 4 is part of a track assembly (unlabeled, Fig. 1) comprising a track support beam (hull), track road wheels 6 (Fig. 1) and at least one sprocket 9 (Fig. 1) arranged to drive the endless track 4 arranged around the track road wheels 6 and the sprocket 9, said idler arrangement comprising:
an idler wheel 48;
an idler wheel support 12 ([0039]; the actuator is also supporting the idler wheel) fitted to the track support beam and configured such that the idler wheel 48 is movably arranged in relation to the support beam;
a control unit 78 ([0058]);
idler wheel position adjusting means 12 operated by the control unit and arranged to position the idler wheel in a desired position ([0028]): and
means for determining a requested torque to be applied by the sprocket ([0064]-[0065]; Anderfaas as modified teaches a pressure sensor as means for determining torque) and forwarding the determined information to the control unit ([0064] the tension control feedback module is described with a means for determining torque of the sprocket 9),
wherein the control unit is configured to operate the idler wheel position adjusting means to maintain, or adjust, the position of the idler wheel ([0065]), based on a requested torque applied by the sprocket ([0064]), to maintain the desired tension in the endless track ([0065], lines 13-15);
Anderfaas does not teach the use of a hydraulic pressure sensor to determine a requested torque of the sprocket.
However, Onozuka teaches a hydraulic suspension system for a tracked vehicle ([0001], Fig. 5 of Onozuka) wherein the sprocket 5 and the idler wheel position adjusting means 12 are hydraulically powered and a pressure sensor 19 is arranged to determine the pressure in the hydraulic oil supplied to power the sprocket ([0013] of Onozuka, “a pressure detector for detecting the pressure in the oil chamber 12a of the cylinder 12”) and where the pressure sensor 19 is arranged to transfer the information to the control unit 17 to determine the requested torque applied by the sprocket 5 (Abstract of Onozuka; “Force to be applied on a rolling wheel part 6 is computed on a driving torque correction control device 17 in accordance with acceleration in the longitudinal and lateral directions, pressure in an oil chamber 12a of a cylinder, the rolling wheel 6 and a detection value of a steering ratio, etc.”), or the sprocket and the idler wheel position adjusting means comprises electrical motors operated by the control unit and said control unit is configured such that an increased requested torque applied by the sprocket activates the electrical motor arranged to move the idler wheel such that the idler wheel is maintained in the desired position or moved towards the second end position, and a reduced requested torque applied by the sprocket moves the idler wheel towards the first end position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the idler arrangement of Anderfaas to use a sensed hydraulic pressure value to determine a requested torque as is done in Onozuka in order to advantageously provide a tracked system which can avoid changes in the vehicle body position over a driving area (Abstract of Onozuka).
Anderfaas as modified does not teach wherein the idler wheel position adjusting means comprises a hydraulic cylinder arranged in the idler wheel support, configured to extend the length of the idler arm to adjust the tension in the endless track, to thereby move the idle wheel along axis A, to adjust the tension in the endless track.
However, Wirkus teaches a crawler track tensioning assembly that comprises a hydraulic cylinder 98 which extends the idler arm 76 to adjust track tension by moving an idler wheel 72 along an axis 82 ([0020], Figs. 3-4 of Wirkus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do a simple substitution of the hydraulic cylinder tensioning mechanism of Wirkus for the integrated hydraulic cylinder tensioning mechanism of Anderfaas and the results would have been predictable and provided the advantage of easy cylinder access and replacement ([0008] and [0020] of Wirkus).
Regarding claim 2, Anderfaas as modified teaches wherein the idler wheel 48 is movable between a first and a second end position ([0040], lines 18-23; unspecified multiple positions would include at least a first and second end position), said first end position (when the actuator is compressed) is arranged closer to the track support beam (hull) than the second position (when the actuator is extended) and the tension in the endless track is reduced when the idler wheel is moved towards the first end position and increased when the idler wheel is moved towards the second position ([0040], lines 18-23).
Regarding claim 3, Anderfaas as modified teaches wherein the idler wheel is resiliently supported in the idler wheel support ([0057], 48,000 pounds extension force is resiliently supporting tensioner 10 which has idler wheel 48).
Regarding claim 8, Anderfaas as modified teaches wherein an increased pressured in the hydraulic oil supplied to the sprocket is detected by the pressure sensor 94 ([0065]) and the control unit 78 ([0058], the pressure sensor communicates to the processor 80 via an analog to digital converter 86, and the processor 80 then communicates to the controller 78) configured to operate the idler wheel position adjusting means such that the idler wheel is maintained in the desired position or moved towards the second end position ([0068], the controller contains the constant track length module which manages the position of the idler wheel 48), and a reduced pressure in the hydraulic oil supplied to power the sprocket moves the idler wheel 48 towards the first end position ([0065], lines 7-13; the actuator is extended or contracted with the addition or removal of fluid).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderfaas in view of Onozuka and Wirkus, and further in view of Brazier (US 20180043947).
Regarding claim 4, Anderfaas as modified teaches wherein the idler wheel support comprises an idler arm (Claim 9 of Anderfaas) turnably connected to the track support beam ([0039], the actuator, which is within an idler arm, is connected to the hull via hull mount 102), said idler arm is turnable around a substantially horizontal axis (Fig. 1; the horizontal axis coming out of the page and located at each end of the actuator as shown in Fig. 3) transverse to the support beam (see annotated Fig. 9 below).
Anderfaas does not teach idler arm angle adjustment means.
However, Brazier teaches a track assembly 300 with pivotal idler wheels 222 (Fig. 46 of Brazier) wherein the idler wheel position adjusting means comprises idler arm angle adjustment means such that an angle a between idler arm and the track support beam is adjustable by the idler arm angle adjustment means ([0060], Fig. 46; the orientation of the piston and idler arm 218 would dictate the higher and lower conditions as being reached by an angular adjustment; this is performed by the vehicle controller).
Brazier recognizes the advantage of accommodating differing terrains as posed by morphing track assemblies ([0004] of Brazier). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the extending idler wheel 48 of the modified assembly of Anderfaas/Onozuka/Wirkus to be angularly pivotable as in Brazier in order to advantageously accommodate differing terrains.
Regarding claim 5, Anderfaas as modified teaches wherein the idler arm angle adjustment means are hydraulically or electrically powered and operated by the control unit 78 ([0058]).
While Anderfaas does not on its own teach the idler arm angle adjustment means, it does disclose position adjusting means that is hydraulically powered and operated by the control unit 78 ([0058]). Brazier teaches the idler arm angle adjustment means ([0060] of Brazier). The question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the idler arm angle adjustment means being hydraulically powered and operated by the control unit 78.
Regarding claim 6, Anderfaas as modified teaches wherein the idler arm is resiliently supported and intended to be forced against the ground with a predetermined force ([0063], the actuator is part of the idler arm and is forced out with a determined force).
PNG
media_image1.png
555
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderfaas in view Onozuka and Wirkus, and further in view of Sauvageau (WO 2020049526).
Regarding claim 10, Anderfaas as modified does not teach a means for determining the weight of the load on the vehicle.
However, Sauvageau teaches a track system 40 for a vehicle further comprising means for determining the weight of the load 1100 on the vehicle ([00201] of Sauvageau, “determining the load supported by different components and/or portions of the track system 40”) and transfer information about the weight to the control unit 1000 such that the tension in the endless track 40 is adjusted depending on the weight of the load on the vehicle ([00185] and [00201]-[00202] of Sauvageau).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified track system of Anderfaas/et.al. to sense load and adjust tension accordingly as Sauvageau teaches in order to advantageously increase rider comfort and improve traction ([00202] of Sauvageau).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderfaas in view Onozuka and Wirkus, and further in view of Tamaru (US 20050029866 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Anderfaas as modified teaches the control unit 78 adjusting the pressure in response to changes in the surface profile ([0065], lines 13-18).
Anderfaas as modified does not teach the control unit adjusting the pressure in response to determined inclination of the ground.
However, Tamaru teaches the idler arrangement further comprising means for determining an inclination of the ground under the vehicle 2 and transfer the information to the control unit 31 ([0064] of Tamaru) such that the tension in the endless track is adjusted depending on the determined inclination ([0048] of Tamaru).
Since each element claimed is present between both Anderfaas and Tamaru, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Anderfaas and Tamaru in order to advantageously provide an idler arrangement which can automatically create optimum tension in the track according to the traveling condition of the vehicle ([0011] and [0048] of Tamaru).
Claims 12-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderfaas in view of Onozuka and Wirkus, and further in view of Lussier (US 20180237020 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Anderfaas as modified teaches a method for operating the idler arrangement to maintain a desired tension in the endless track (Claim 15 of Anderfaas), said method comprises the steps:
a.) Anderfaas as modified teaches step a.) as part of the process for the Tension Control Feedback Module (part of the control unit 78) ([0064], lines 10-13);
b) activate the idler wheel position adjusting means to position the idler wheel in the desired position to maintaining the desired tension in the endless track (Claim 15).
Anderfaas as modified does not teach using a requested torque of the sprocket to activate the idler wheel position adjusting means.
However, Lussier teaches determining the torque of the sprocket 60, 64 ([0076] of Lussier) in order to keep the track in the friction drive mode ([0107] of Lussier) and using the torque of the sprocket as a threshold for increasing the hydraulic pressure of the tensioning system ([0106] of Lussier, lines 6-13) which adjusts the idler wheel position ([0104] of Lussier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anderfaas, so that the modified track tensioner of Anderfaas/Onozuka/Wirkus includes the friction drive mode of Lussier in order to reduce strain ([0062] of Lussier).
Regarding claim 13, Anderfaas as modified teaches wherein the idler wheel is movable between a first and a second end position ([0040], lines 18-23; unspecified multiple positions would include at least a first and second end position), said first end position (when the actuator is compressed) is arranged closer to the track support beam (hull) than the second position (when the actuator is extended) and the tension in the endless track is reduced when the idler wheel is moved towards the first end position and increased when the idler wheel is moved towards the second position ([0040], lines 18-23).
Anderfaas as modified does not teach wherein the idler wheel is maintained in the desired position or moved towards the second end position when the requested torque applied by the sprocket is increased.
However, Lussier teaches determining the torque of the sprocket 60, 64 ([0076] of Lussier) in order to keep the track in the friction drive mode ([0107] of Lussier) and using the torque of the sprocket as a threshold for increasing the hydraulic pressure of the tensioning system ([0106] of Lussier, lines 6-13) which adjusts the idler wheel position ([0104] of Lussier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of Anderfaas, so that the modified track tensioner of Anderfaas/Onozuka/Wirkus includes the friction drive mode of Lussier in order to advantageously reduce strain ([0062] of Lussier).
Regarding claim 14, Anderfaas as modified does not teach wherein the idler wheel is maintained or moved to the first position by reduced sprocket torque.
However, Lussier teaches wherein the idler wheel 32 is maintained in the desired position or moved towards the first end position when the requested torque applied by the sprocket 60, 64 is reduced ([0106] of Lussier, lines 6-13; the friction drive mode reduces hydraulic pressure. The decrease in hydraulic pressure is disclosed as being when the arms contract inward in [0104] of Lussier, which is the first end position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of Anderfaas, so that the modified track tensioner of Anderfaas/Onozuka/Wirkus includes the friction drive mode of Lussier in order to advantageously reduce strain ([0062] of Lussier).
Regarding claim 18, Anderfaas as modified does not teach the requested torque being determined by a throttle, a measured hydraulic pressure, or a measured power.
However, Lussier teaches wherein information regarding the requested torque applied by the sprocket 60, 64 is determined by a throttle, a measured pressure in a hydraulic system for powering the sprocket, or a measured power in an electrical system arranged to power the sprocket ([0077], using a throttle is disclosed as being one engine parameter that can be examined to determine torque produced which in turn can be used to determine the torque value applied on the sprocket).
Lussier teaches the above limitation as part of a track which incorporates a friction drive mode to reduce wear on the drive lugs 57.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of Anderfaas, so that the modified track tensioner of Anderfaas/Onozuka/Wirkus includes the friction drive mode of Lussier in order to advantageously reduce strain ([0062] of Lussier).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderfaas in view of Onozuka, Wirkus, and Lussier, and further in view of Brazier.
Regarding claim 15, Anderfaas as modified teaches wherein the idler wheel support comprises an idler arm (Claim 9) turnably connected to the track support beam ([0039], the actuator 12, which is within an idler arm, is connected to the hull via hull mount 102) around a substantially horizontal axis (Fig. 1; the horizontal axis coming out of the page and located at both ends of the actuator 12) transverse to the track support beam (hull) (see annotated Fig. 9 above) and the control unit 78 configured to control the position of the idler arm.
Anderfaas as modified does not teach the control unit configured to adapt an angle of the idler arm based on the requested torque applied by the sprocket in order to adjust the tension in the endless track.
However, Brazier teaches idler arm angle adjustment means ([0060] of Brazier, Fig. 46; the orientation of the piston and idler arm 218 would dictate the higher and lower conditions as being reached by an angular adjustment; this is performed by the vehicle controller).
Brazier recognizes the advantage of accommodating differing terrains as posed by morphing track assemblies ([0004] of Brazier). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of Anderfaas/Onozuka/Wirkus/Lussier, so that the extending idler wheel 48 be angularly pivotable as in Brazier in order to beneficially accommodate differing terrains
Anderfaas as modified does not teach the control unit configured to reposition the idler arm based on the requested torque applied by the sprocket in order to adjust the tension in the endless track.
However, Lussier teaches wherein the idler wheel 32 is extended or contracted when the requested torque applied by the sprocket 60, 64 is increased or reduced ([0106] of Lussier, lines 6-13) in order to keep the track in the friction drive mode ([0107] of Lussier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified method of Anderfaas/Onozuka/Wirkus, so that the modified track tensioner of Anderfaas/Onozuka/Wirkus includes the friction drive mode of Lussier in order to advantageously reduce strain ([0062] of Lussier).
While Anderfaas does not on its own teach the idler arm angle adjustment means or the control unit repositioning the idler arm based on the requested sprocket torque, it does disclose position adjusting means that is hydraulically powered and operated by the control unit 78 ([0058]); Brazier teaches the idler arm angle adjustment means ([0060] of Brazier); and Lussier teaches repositioning the idler arm based on the requested sprocket torque ([0106] of Lussier). The question is what would result from the combined teachings of the references. See in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, that result would be the idler wheel support comprises an idler arm turnably connected to the track support beam around a substantially horizontal axis transverse to the track support beam (as this is disclosed in Anderfaas) and the control unit is configured to control the position of the idler arm to adapt an angle of the idler arm (as this is disclosed in Brazier) based on the requested torque applied by the sprocket in order to adjust the tension in the endless track (as this is disclosed in Lussier).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderfaas in view of Onozuka, Wirkus, and Lussier, and further in view of Sauvageau.
Regarding claim 16, Anderfaas as modified does not teach wherein information regarding the weight of the load on the vehicle is determined and transferred to the control unit such that the tension in the endless track is adjusted depending on the weight of the load on the vehicle.
However, Sauvageau teaches a track system 40 for a vehicle wherein information regarding the weight of the load on the vehicle is determined and transferred to the control unit 1000 such that the tension in the endless track 40 is adjusted depending on the weight of the load on the vehicle ([00185] and [00201]-[00202] of Sauvageau).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified track system of Anderfaas/et.al. to sense load and adjust tension accordingly as Sauvageau teaches in order to advantageously increase rider comfort and improve traction ([00202] of Sauvageau).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderfaas in view of Onozuka, Wirkus, and Lussier, and further in view of Tamaru.
Regarding claim 17, Anderfaas as modified teaches the control unit 78 adjusting the pressure in response to changes in the surface profile ([0065], lines 13-18).
Anderfaas as modified does not teach the control unit adjusting the pressure in response to determined inclination of the ground.
However, Tamaru teaches wherein information regarding the inclination of the ground under the vehicle 2 is determined and transferred to the control unit 31 ([0064] of Tamaru) such that the tension in the endless track is adjusted depending on the determined inclination ([0048] of Tamaru) of the ground under the vehicle 2.
Since each element claimed is present between both Anderfaas and Tamaru, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Anderfaas and Tamaru in order to advantageously provide an idler arrangement which can automatically create optimum tension in the track according to the traveling condition of the vehicle ([0011] and [0048] of Tamaru).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edelin (US 20200114992) in view of Wirkus.
Regarding claim 19, Edelin teaches an idler arrangement 116 ([0016]) for maintaining the desired tension in an endless track 122 of a track assembly ([0025]), comprising:
an idler wheel 118 ([0016]);
an idler wheel support 216 fitted to a track support beam 104 of the track assembly ([0016], Fig. 1) and configured such that the idler wheel 118 is movably arranged in relation to the track support beam 104 ([0016], the idler is rotatable relative to the roller frame 104 and additionally is connected to the roller frame 104 by a hydraulic cylinder which can reposition the idler wheel 118 relative to the roller frame 104);
an idler wheel position adjusting means 226 arranged to position the idler wheel 118 in a desired position ([0025]); and
a control unit 310 configured to maintain a desired tension in the endless track 122 ([0025], [0042]-[0043]), when arranged around a sprocket 120 ([0016]) and track road wheels of the track assembly, by:
obtaining a requested torque to be applied by the sprocket 120 of the track assembly ([0042]; torque supplied by the engine to the drive sprockets is a parameter for actuating the tension adjustment system),
operating the idler wheel position adjusting means 226 to move the idler wheel in a direction towards the track support beam when a reduced torque is to be applied by the sprocket ([0025]; “Decreasing the pressure within tensioning cylinder may decrease a tension of track 122 by decreasing the force on yoke 216, which draws idler 118 toward tension assembly 102”), and
operating the idler wheel position adjusting means 226 to maintain the idler wheel in the desired position or to move the idler wheel in a direction away from the track support beam, when an increased torque is to be applied by the sprocket ([0025]; “Increasing the pressure within tensioning cylinder 226 may increase a tension of track 122 by applying increased force on yoke 216, which pushes idler 118 into track 122” and “Tension adjustment system 202 may be controlled to release lubricant from tensioning cylinder 226 via relief valve 248 to decrease and/or maintain a pressure within tensioning cylinder 226”).
Edelin does not teach wherein the idler wheel position adjusting means comprises a hydraulic cylinder arranged in the idler wheel support, configured to extend the length of the idler arm to adjust the tension in the endless track, to thereby move the idle wheel along axis A, to adjust the tension in the endless track.
However, Wirkus teaches a crawler track tensioning assembly that comprises a hydraulic cylinder 98 which extends the idler arm 76 to adjust track tension by moving an idler wheel 72 along an axis 82 ([0020], Figs. 3-4 of Wirkus).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do a simple substitution of the hydraulic cylinder tensioning mechanism of Wirkus for the integrated hydraulic cylinder tensioning mechanism of Edelin and the results would have been predictable and provided the advantage of easy cylinder access and replacement ([0008] and [0020] of Wirkus).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 7866420 teaches a tensioning actuator integrated with the idler arm.
US 20050029866 teaches a track tension adjustment actuator that is integrated with the idler arm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/JOHN OLSZEWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3617