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 .
Statement re Text of U.S. Code
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Election/Restrictions
It is noted that all of the remaining claims 1-3 and 7-8 (i.e., remaining after the amendment filed 1/20/2026) are all readable on the elected species (a first species of machine tool, shown in Figures 1-6, elected without traverse in the reply filed 9/9/2025), and thus, no claims are being withdrawn at the present time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 8, the claim recites “at least one of the two carriages (3; 4) comprising at least one respective motor (18; 19) fitted with a toothed wheel (20) which engages with the second rack (17)”. However, it is unclear how many (and what configuration) toothed wheels are intended to be required in the event that both of the carriages comprise at least one motor, e.g., one toothed wheel shared by plural motors, or one toothed wheel per motor, etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0058872 to Rӧders (hereinafter, “Rӧders”) in view of CN 102990479 A (hereinafter, “CN ‘479).
Rӧders teaches a machine tool (see at least Figure 1 and paragraphs 0021 and 0026, for example) comprising:
a straight guide element (the upper crossbeam of portal 14, on which crossbeam the two guide rails 2, 2 are provided; see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0026 and 0029, for example) extending “along” a first axis (such as, for example, the horizontal longitudinal direction of the crossbeam, labeled in the annotated reproduction of Figure 1 below as “D1”, though it is noted that as broadly claimed, the crossbeam/guide element is a three-dimensional object that “extends along”, as well as extends in, an infinite number of directions);
two carriages (5, 5, or alternatively, 5+9 and 5) arranged at a “fixed distance” with respect to each other along the (aforedescribed) guide element and slidable together along the (rails 2, 2, on the) guide element (see Figures 1 and 3-5, as well as at least paragraph 0029); and
a slide (4) interposed between (such as between in direction D1 labeled below) the two carriages (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) (see Figures 1 and 3-5, for example), carried by the two carriages (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) (see Figures 1-5 and paragraphs 0029-0030, for example) and slidable (via the sliding of guide rails 8 relative to “guide wagons”/sliders 16; Figures 1, 4-5, paragraphs 0027, 0032, for example) in relation (so as to slide vertically with respect to the two carriages 5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) to the two carriages (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) along a second axis (vertical) perpendicular to the first axis (D1) (see Figures 1-5 and paragraphs 0026-0030).
[AltContent: textbox (D1)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
604
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it is noted that Rӧders teaches that the drive arrangement for causing the carriages (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) to move (along rails 2, 2) in a direction parallel to the first axis (D1, described above) is a not shown drive. See paragraph 0029, for example. Also, Rӧders teaches that the carriages (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) can be driven “by means of a linear motor or any other way” (see paragraphs 0001 and 0029).
That said, Rӧders does not expressly teach the particular rack/pinion drive arrangement for causing the carriages (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) to move (e.g., along rails 2, 2) in a direction parallel to the first axis (D1) as set forth in claim 1.
However, attention is directed to CN ‘479.
It is noted that a machine translation of CN ‘479 was being made of record on the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892) accompanying Office Action mailed October 17, 2025. That said, attention is directed to that machine translation regarding any references herein to page numbers, line numbers, paragraph numbers, or the like, re CN ‘479.
CN ‘479 teaches a machine tool in a gantry/portal configuration (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0009, for example) having a crossbeam (whose longitudinal direction extends in the left/right horizontal direction re Figure 1) on which is mounted guide rail 6 (whose longitudinal direction also extends in the left/right horizontal direction re Figure 1; note that CN ‘479 terms this guide rail a “Y-direction guide rail” or “beam guide rail”; see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0009, 0031, 0037-0037, for example). A Y-direction rack 7 (to use the verbiage of CN ‘479) is provided on the crossbeam, and also has a longitudinal direction that is parallel to the rail 6. See Figure 1 and paragraphs 0009, 0021, 0031, 0037, for example. A slide 11 is provided so as to be movable in the longitudinal direction of the crossbeam (i.e., in the left/right horizontal direction re Figure 1) along the guide rail 6. A ram 10 is provided on slide 11, and has a composite/compound machining head 15 affixed thereto (i.e., to 10). See Figures 1, 3, and 4, and paragraphs 0009, 0016, 0023, 0030-0031, 0033, 0034, 0037-0039.
In order to drive the slide 11 (and ram 10 and machining head 15 that are mounted to 11) in the longitudinal direction of the crossbeam (along guide rail 6), the slide 11 is provided with two motors (termed “Y servo motors” by CN ‘479), one on each “side” of the slide 11, spaced in the travel direction of 11 (i.e., the travel direction as 11 moves along 6) that are each provided with a respective gear/pinion that meshes with the rack 7. See Figure 1, as well as at least paragraphs 0021, 0037, 0039, for example. Note that the motors 8 are described as being dual motors controlled to eliminate backlash. (See paragraphs 0021, 0037, 0039.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a respective one of the dual motor backlash elimination-servo-controlled motors 8, 8 (as taught by CN ‘479) (and the pinions attached thereto that are taught by CN ‘479) that are provided on each of two opposite sides of the element (11 re CN ‘479) being linearly moved (along the guide rail that extends in the longitudinal direction of the gantry/portal crossbeam) in the longitudinal direction of the gantry/portal cross beam, which motors 8, 8 are spaced from one another in the direction of travel of the driven element 11, all as taught by CN ‘479, to each of the two opposite sides of the element (3 of Rӧders) being linearly moved along the longitudinal direction of the crossbeam of the gantry/portal (14 of Rӧders), and to have provided the crossbeam of the gantry/portal (14 of Rӧders) with a rack (7 of CN ‘479) whose longitudinal direction is parallel to the guide rail longitudinal direction and to the crossbeam longitudinal direction engaged by the aforedescribed pinions, as taught by CN ‘479, noting that such amounts to the substitution of one functional equivalent (rack and pinion type linear drive arrangement taught by CN ‘479) for another (either of the generic linear drive or the specific linear motor taught by Rӧders) to obtain the predictable result of the linear driving of the elements 5, 4, 5 of Rӧders along the length of the guide rails 2, 2, and for the purpose of providing a drive arrangement that eliminates backlash (CN ‘479, paragraphs 0021, 0037, 0039) and that provides “high speed and high efficiency” (CN ‘479, paragraph 0009, for example).
Resultantly, re claim 1, the guide element (the crossbeam of the gantry/portal 14 taught by Rӧders) comprises a first rack (7 of CN ‘479) extending in (such as having a longitudinal direction extending in) a direction parallel to the (aforedescribed) first axis (D1 of Rӧders) (see Figures 1 of Rӧders and CN ‘479); wherein one of the two carriages (5, 5 of Rӧders, or 5+9 and 5 of Rӧders) comprises a first motor (one 8 of CN ‘479) and the other of the two carriages (the other carriage 5) comprises a second motor (the other motor 8 of CN ‘479), the first and second motors being fitted with respective toothed wheels (as taught by CN ‘479, as described above) which mesh with the first rack (7 of CN ‘479, as described above) and are configured to exert respective torques in opposite directions upon the respective toothed wheels (see paragraphs 0021, 0037, and 0039 regarding the backlash control of the two servo motors 8, 8 of CN ‘479).
Also resultantly, regarding claim 1, the first and the second motor (8, 8 of CN ‘479) are configured to control, in a coordinated manner, the torques exerted upon the respective toothed wheels (taught by CN ‘479 as described above) so as to modulate the stiffness of the connection between the carriages (5, 5 of Rӧders, or 5+9 and 5 of Rӧders) and the slide (4 of Rӧders) in a direction substantially parallel to the first axis (D1 of Rӧders). Note that the dual-control of the two motors 8, 8 of CN ‘479 is described as being for backlash control, and thus, the two motors are able to be driven in opposite rotational directions to modulate stiffness of the connection between the carriages 5, 5, of Rӧders (or 5+9 and 5 of Rӧders) and the slider 4 to at least some degree, however slight. See paragraphs 0021, 0037, 0039 of CN ‘479 and at least Figures 1 and 5 of Rӧders, for example.
Regarding claim 2, Rӧders teaches a machining head (such as, for example, 10) carried by the slide (4) and configured to carry a machining tool (15) (see Figures 1-3 and paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Rӧders teaches that the (aforedescribed crossbeam) guide element comprises at least one rail (2, 2) “extending in” (such as, for example, having a dimension in; alternatively, such as, for example, having a longitudinal direction extending in) a direction parallel to the (aforedescribed) first axis (D1) (see Figures 1-4 and paragraphs 0029 and 0031, for example), and each of the carriages (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) comprises at least one respective runner (17) coupled to the at least one rail (2, 2) slidably along the direction of the first axis (D1) and rigidly in a direction (such as vertically, or such as horizontally in a direction perpendicular to D1) perpendicular to the first axis (D1). See, for example, Figures 1-5 of Rӧders and especially Figures 2 and 5. See also at least paragraphs 0029-0032 Rӧders, for example.
Regarding claim 7, the slide (4) (of Rӧders) comprises at least two rails (8, 8), each of which is facing the respective carriage (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) (see Figures 1-5, and particularly see Figure 5, noting that one of the rails 8 that is on the left side of 4 in Figure 5 “faces” the carriage 5 that is on the left of Figure 5, and noting that one of the rails 8 that is on the right side of 4 in Figure 5 “faces” the carriage 5 that is on the right side of Figure 5) and “extends in” (has a dimension in the vertical direction, for example; alternatively, note that each rail 8 has a longitudinal direction that is parallel to the aforedescribed vertical second axis) a direction parallel to the (aforedescribed vertical) second axis (see Figures 1-5 and at least paragraphs 0027-0028, 0032, for example); each carriage (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) being fitted with at least one respective slider (16, 16) coupled to the respective rail (8, 8) in a sliding way along the direction of the (aforedescribed vertical) second axis and “rigid” in a direction (such as direction D1, or such as, for example, a horizontal direction perpendicular to D1) perpendicular to the (aforedescribed vertical) second axis. See Figures 1-5 Rӧders, and particularly Figure 5, as well as at least paragraphs 0027 and 0032 Rӧders, for example.
Claim 8, as best understood in view of the above rejections based on 35 USC 112, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0058872 to Rӧders (hereinafter, “Rӧders”) in view of CN 102990479 A (hereinafter, “CN ‘479) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 2,902,875 to Finally et al. (hereinafter, “Finally”).
Rӧders in view of CN ‘479 teaches all aspects of the presently-claimed invention as were described in the above rejection(s) based thereon.
Additionally, it is noted that Rӧders teaches that the drive arrangement for causing the slider (4) to move (guided by rails 8 and sliders/guide wagons 16) in a direction parallel to the aforedescribed (vertical) second axis is a not-shown drive/driving means (to use the verbiage of Rӧders). See paragraphs 0026-0027, for example. Also, Rӧders teaches that the slider (4) can be driven by, for example, a ball bearing spindle drive or a linear motor drive, and two drives can be provided on both sides (i.e., each of two opposite sides) of the slider (4), “or in any other way” (see paragraph 0012, 0026, and 0029, for example).
That said, Rӧders (re Rӧders/CN ‘479) does not expressly teach the particular rack/pinion drive arrangement for causing the slide (4) to move in a direction parallel to the aforedescribed (vertical) second axis as set forth in claim 8.
However, attention is directed to Finally.
Finally teaches an arrangement for linearly moving a tool slide 10 of a machine tool back and forth along ways/guide rails 11 (see Figures 1-2, as well as at least col. 2, lines 39-49, for example). In particular, the tool slide 10 has mounted thereon a rack 12 (see Figures 1-2 and col. 2, lines 39-49, for example). A gearbox 15 has a main power stroke drive means A that includes a motor, a main clutch 31, and a reduction gear train 32 that drivingly connects to a pinion 13 that is in mesh with the rack 12 so as to cause the tool slide 10 to be driven to move in the horizontal direction towards the right re Figure 1. See Figure 1 and col. 2, lines 50-54. The gearbox 15 also has a return stroke drive means B that includes a motor 40, a return clutch 41, and a reduction gear train 42 that drives a pinion 14 that is in mesh with the rack 12 to as to cause the tool slide 10 to be driven to move in the horizontal direction towards the left re Figure 1. See Figure 1 and col. 2, lines 54-58, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the specific rack/pinion drive arrangement taught by Finally for the generic linear drive arrangement or linear motor taught by Rӧders that is used to move slide 4 in the vertical direction relative to 5/5 of Rӧders for the purpose of providing a drive arrangement for which “backlash is eliminated” and the tool slide (4 of Rӧders) is advanced “with a smooth, uniform and positive movement” (all as taught by Finally; see col. 1, lines 51-57, for example).
Resultantly, note that the combination of Rӧders/CN ‘479/Finally results in the slide (4 of Rӧders) comprises a second rack (12 of Finally) extending in the direction parallel to the second axis (vertical direction re Rӧders, which direction is parallel to the direction in which the tool slide being fed is fed; see the longitudinal direction of 12 in Figure 1 of Finally, and the vertical direction of Figure 1 off Rӧders); at least one of the two carriages (5, 5 of Rӧders, or 5+9 and 5 of Rӧders) comprising at least one motor (30, 40 of Finally) fitted with a toothed wheel (13 or 14 of Finally) which engages with the second rack (12 of Finally). Note that it is considered inherent that the motor(s) of Finally would necessarily be provided to (in some capacity/sense) one or both of the carriages 5, 5 of Rӧders, (or 5+9 and 5 of Rӧders), as the motors 30, 40 of Finally must be provided at/to an element relative to which the element (i.e., 10 of Finally, 4 of Rӧders) being driven by the motors can move, and given the additional movement of 5/5 of Rӧders along rails 2, thus, the drive motor(s) (of Finally) for moving 4 (of Rӧders) vertically must be provided to at least one of the carriages 5, 5, of Rӧders (or carriages 5+9 and 5 of Rӧders).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 112(a), Applicant indicates that the claims have been amended to address the concerns. While such rejections were largely overcome by the amendments filed 1/20/2026, attention is directed to the above rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC 112(b) for any issues with respect thereto that remain.
As noted in on page 6 of the 1/20/2026, the subject matter of previous dependent claims 4-6 is now included in independent claim 1. It is noted that previous dependent claim 6 depended from previous claim 5, previous dependent claim 5 depended from previous claim 4, and previous claim 4 depended from previous claim 1. That said, it is also noted that previous claim 6 (including the subject matter of previous claims 5 and 4) was rejected in the Office Action mailed 10/17/2025 under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0058872 to Rӧders (hereinafter, “Rӧders”) in view of CN 102990479 A (hereinafter, “CN ‘479), as is present claim 1 hereinabove.
That said, Applicant has alleged (on page 7 of the 1/20/2026 reply) that CN ‘479 “fails to disclose at least the fact that the first and the second motor (11, 12) are configured to control, in a coordinated manner, the torques exerted upon the respective toothed wheels (13) so as to modulate the stiffness of the connection between the carriages (3, 4) and the slide (5) in a direction substantially parallel to the first axis (A1)” (as set forth in previous claim 6, and as now set forth in independent claim 1), and specifically, that “[T]he machine tool of CN'479 comprises only one slide 11, which is slidable along Y- directions guide rails 6 and is provided with two Y-direction servo motors 8 fixed at both sides of the slide 11 to mesh with the Y-direction rack 7” and that “[T]herefore, the servo motors 8 of CN'479 cannot in any way modulate the stiffness of the connection between the carriages and the slide in the Y direction since said servo motors 8 are connected to the same slide 11”.
However, such is not persuasive. It is noted that CN ‘479 was not relied upon to teach the two carriages, but rather, Rӧders teaches the two carriages (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5, as discussed in detail in the previous and present prior art rejections of claim 1). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant has additionally provided a discussion of various advantages that the capability of the first and second motors to control, in a coordinated manner, the torques exerted upon the respective toothed wheels (see the paragraph on page 7 of the 1/20/2026 reply beginning “[T]hanks to the face…”, as well as the paragraph spanning pages 7-8 of the 1/20/2026 reply), and further, has provided an assertion about Applicant’s opinion of “the objective technical problem to be solved” (see the first full paragraph on page 8 of the 1/20/2026). Applicant then goes on to indicate that since Rӧders is silent about the specific technical objective that Applicant opined is the problem to the solved by the aforementioned capability of the first and second motors, that must somehow mean that it would not be obvious to provide the motors of CN ‘479 to the machine of Rӧders. However, Applicant’s logic is unclear. Whether or not Rӧders expressly teaches adapting the stiffness of the connection between the carriages and the slide is not relevant to whether one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the teachings of Rӧders in view of the teachings of CN ‘479 in the manner described in the above rejection of claim 1 based thereon. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Furthermore, to the extent that Applicant is intending to argue that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as noted in the above rejection of claim 1 (with particular emphasis on the italicized portions below):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a respective one of the dual motor backlash elimination-servo-controlled motors 8, 8 (as taught by CN ‘479) (and the pinions attached thereto that are taught by CN ‘479) that are provided on each of two opposite sides of the element (11 re CN ‘479) being linearly moved (along the guide rail that extends in the longitudinal direction of the gantry/portal crossbeam) in the longitudinal direction of the gantry/portal cross beam, which motors 8, 8 are spaced from one another in the direction of travel of the driven element 11, all as taught by CN ‘479, to each of the two opposite sides of the element (3 of Rӧders) being linearly moved along the longitudinal direction of the crossbeam of the gantry/portal (14 of Rӧders), and to have provided the crossbeam of the gantry/portal (14 of Rӧders) with a rack (7 of CN ‘479) whose longitudinal direction is parallel to the guide rail longitudinal direction and to the crossbeam longitudinal direction engaged by the aforedescribed pinions, as taught by CN ‘479, noting that such amounts to the substitution of one functional equivalent (rack and pinion type linear drive arrangement taught by CN ‘479) for another (either of the generic linear drive or the specific linear motor taught by Rӧders) to obtain the predictable result of the linear driving of the elements 5, 4, 5 of Rӧders along the length of the guide rails 2, 2, and for the purpose of providing a drive arrangement that eliminates backlash (CN ‘479, paragraphs 0021, 0037, 0039) and that provides “high speed and high efficiency” (CN ‘479, paragraph 0009, for example).
As a side note, it is noted that on page 8 of the 1/20/2026 reply, Applicant has indicated that the “[T]he technical problem of adapting the stiffness of the connection between carriages and slide to the different operating conditions of the machine tool is not even addressed in Rӧders since the gantry machine of Rӧders is equipped with a linear motor 21 to move horizontally the support elements”, and appears to be indicating that the use of a linear motor somehow means that the present claim 1 would not be obvious over Rӧders. Firstly, it is noted that the aforedescribed combination of Rӧders in view of CN ‘479 results in the linear drive arrangement taught by Rӧders being replaced by the linear drive arrangement taught by CN ‘479, and furthermore (as noted previously), it is noted that it is irrelevant as to whether Rӧders expressly teaches adapting the stiffness. Additionally, for the sake of accuracy, it is also noted that Rӧders (as discussed in both the previous and present prior art rejections based on Rӧders) teaches that the carriages (5, 5, or 5+9 and 5) can be driven “by means of a linear motor or any other way” (see paragraphs 0001 and 0029).
Additionally, Applicant has indicated that because CN ‘479 “discloses a machine tool provided with only one carriage and there is no possibility to adjust the stiffness of the connection”, this somehow means that CN ‘479 teaches away from (“leads the skilled person away from”) the invention as set forth in independent claim 1. (See Applicants remarks on page 8 of the reply filed 1/20/2026). However, such is not persuasive, noting that CN ‘479 (nor Rӧders, for that matter) “teach away” from providing motors that are capable of performing the claimed function/intended use of “control[ling] in a coordinated manner, the torques exerted upon the respective toothed wheels (13) to as to modulate the stiffness of the connection between the carriages (3, 4) and the slide (5) in a direction parallel to the first axis (A1)” as set forth in claim 1, noting that neither Rӧders nor CN ‘479 disparage such operation or teach that such is undesirable in any way.
Applicant has alleged that “[T]hose claims depending on claim 1 should be allowed as depending from what should now be an allowed independent claim 1”. However, likewise, the same responses to Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 likewise apply to the rejected dependent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 ERICA E CADUGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, and via 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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/ERICA E CADUGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
eec
March 25, 2026