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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21 and it dependents, in particularly claims 28 and 29, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Elgimiabi and O’Kane.
Regarding claims 30-38, the arguments were found unpersuasive.
Applicant argues:
Bailly is directed to a method of assembling a box structure without any fasteners. Bailly
paragraphs [0004] and [0074]. In Bailly, a structural adhesive is applied to a perimeter of a
flange of a stiffener as a bead of adhesive. Bailly paragraph [0050]. The bead of adhesive seals
the skin to the stiffener. Bailly paragraph [0056]. Bailly fills the interface between the skin and
stiffener boarded by the peripheral bead using injection of adhesive. Bailly paragraphs [0057][
0058]. The injection method of Bailly fills the entire interface by injecting adhesive until the
adhesive is visible at the next injection point. Bailly paragraph [0058].
The material of Bailly is a structural adhesive. The example structural adhesives
provided by Bailly include 3M SW 9323-2 and HUNTSMAN AW 4859. Bailly paragraph
[0052]. For both of these commercially available adhesives, only the shear strength
measurements are provided. These materials would not be considered a "structural gap filler," as
claimed. Bailly is silent as to a "structural gap filler."
Further, Baily does not disclose "spreading a structural gap filler onto at least one of a
first surface of a composite skin, flanges of spars, or edges of ribs," as in claim 36. The method
of applying a bead of adhesive followed by injecting an adhesive into the interface is the only
method disclosed in Bailly. As Bailly does not disclose every feature of the claims as they are
currently presented in the claims, Bailly does not anticipate claims 36 or 37.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The structural adhesive of Bailly is used to bond composites to provide parts of a load-bearing aircraft assembly. The adhesive of Bailly is injected into a gap between two components, thereby performing as a gap filler. There is no disclosure precluding a structural adhesive disposed in a gap from a structural gap filler.
The claimed step of “spreading a structural gap filler onto at least one of a first surface of a composite skin, flanges of spars, or edges of ribs” is met by applying a bead of adhesive followed by injecting an adhesive into the interface is the only
method disclosed in Bailly because by disposing the structural gap filler and joining to surfaces, the gap filler of Bailly is spread with the gap.
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.
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179).
Regarding claim 36 and 37, Bailly teaches a method of forming an aircraft, the method (Figure 1A-3 and 5 and [0064]-[0071])) comprising:
spreading a structural gap filler onto at least one of a first surface of a composite skin, flanges of spars, or edges of ribs, or a second surface of a second component [0050]-[0052], [0055]-[0056], [0062];
applying the composite skin over the spars or ribs [0050]-[0052], [0055]-[0056], [0062];
curing the structural gap filler [0056]; and
injecting additional structural gap filler between the first component and second component in the gap between the structural gap filler and the at least one of the first or second component (Figures 6A-6D and [0057]-[0061], [0073]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179) in view of Elgimiabi (PG-PUB 2023/0002652).
Regarding claim 21, Bailly teaches a method of forming an injection-bonded joint, the method comprising:
spreading a structural gap filler onto one of a first surface of a skin or a second surface of a second component [0050]-[0055], [0062]; and
applying the skin over the second component [0050]-[0052].
Bailly teaches the structural gap filler is a polyurethane or epoxy resin, with one or two components [0050], [0052] identical to the claimed structural gap (Applicant’s [0078], [0274]), applied in the same manner (Applicant’s [0241]) with the same configuration of the stiffener and skin as claimed (Figure 1 and [0050]-[0051]).
Bailly does not explicitly teach the structural gap is configured to provide compression strength equivalent to the compression strength of the skin and second component.
Elgimiabi teaches a liquid shimming composition that can also function as an adhesive [0006], wherein the composition is a two-part curable shimming adhesive comprising a multifunction epoxy resin [0007]. Elgimiabi teaches the adhesive is used to make shims for bonded assemblies, such as for aircraft components [0024]-[0026]. Elgimiabi teaches the shim adhesive is used to fill gaps between assembled parts that would otherwise produce dimpling or buckling of the part, and associated stress concentrations, where the stress concentrations, if severe, can cause fasteners to fail and ultimately cause significant damage to the aircraft [0002], [0025]-[0026]. Elgimiabi it is desirable to provide compositions that can readily flow or spread (i.e. , a liquid or paste) before curing , allowing it to form a customized shim that precisely fits the gap in which it is to be installed [0026]. Elgimiabi teaches the shimming adhesive compositions will demonstrate high compression strength properties at ambient temperature and elevated temperatures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Bailly with the shimming adhesive of Elgimiabi for the benefit of providing improved strength suitable for aircrafts to avoid damage due to the failure of the joints between composites.
Based on the teachings of Elgimiabi, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the strength of an assembly comprising parts joined by a shimming adhesive is limited by the strength of the shimming adhesive because the shimming adhesive is used to fill gaps between assembled parts that would otherwise produce dimpling or buckling of the part due to associated stress concentrations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the compressive strength of the shimming adhesive of Bailly in view of Elgimiabi to be equivalent to the compression strength of the skin and second component in order to provide a suitable strength for aeronautical applications where heavy load is applied to the joint as taught by Bailly ([0001]-[0003]) without buckling or deformation occurring as taught by Elgimiabi.
Regarding claim 22-25, Bailly in view of Elgimiabi teaches the method as applied to claim 21. Bailly teaches a plurality of vent orifices are drilled in the skin to be assembled at the locations of the stiffeners and the diameter of the injection orifices is just necessary for passing the nozzle of the adhesive gun (Bailly, [0053]).Bailly teaches after the structural gap filler is cured, injection is performed in the orifice so as to make the edge of the second structural gap filler advance (Bailly, Figure 6A-6B and [0057]), and injection is performed until the volume of the gap between the orifice is completely filled (Bailly, [0060]), repeating this for each orifice and providing complete filling (Bailly, [0059]-[0062]).
Bailly in view of Elgimiabi does not explicitly teach determining if an out of tolerance gap is present between the structural gap filler.
Bailly in view of Elgimiabi does not explicitly teach at least one of the skin or the second component and determining if a gap of at least 0.005” is present.
Bailly in view of Elgimiabi does not explicitly teach in response to a determination that an out of tolerance gap is present, injecting a second structural gap filler.
Bailly in view of Elgimiabi does not explicitly teach inspecting the structural gap filler is performed through a hole in the skin.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an operator injection resin into the orifices of Bailly in view of Elgimiabi would have naturally inspected the condition of the void in the orifice such that a void indeed exists in order to allow for the nozzle to be inserted in the orifice and ensure there is sufficient room for the second structural gap filler to be injected. While Bailly does not explicitly discuss the size of the gap being at least 0.005” to illicit a second structural gap filler, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized an operator inspecting a orifice to inject the second structural gap filler would have chosen a gap suitable for filling as a gap that is visible and, therefore at least 0.005”.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Bailly to incorporate a step of inspecting the gap to confirm the cavity is sealed and the gap exists before injecting to yield the predictable result of ensuring a cavity exists and completely filling the volume of the gap as desired by Bailly [0060].
Regarding claim 26, Bailly in view of Elgimiabi teaches the process as applied to claim 21, wherein the second component is one of a spar or rib (Bailly, Figure 1 and [0051]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179) in view of Elgimiabi (PG-PUB 2023/0002652), as applied to claim 21, in further view of Kent (PG-PUB 2016/0318597).
Regarding claim 27, Bailly in view of Elgimiabi teaches the method as applied to claim 21, wherein the structural gap filler is applied through injection (Bailly, [0060] and Elgimiabi, [0067]) and filler may be applied to the entire perimeter of the flange for wide flanges (Bailly, [0050]-[0051]).
Bailly in view of Elgimiabi does not teach spreading the structural gap filler comprises spreading the structural gap filler with a least one a squeegee, brush or trowel.
Kent teaches liquid epoxy-based adhesives may be applied with a brush or roller to interface areas between at least one of spar, first panel or second panel [0074]-[0077].
Both Bailly and Kent are drawn to applying an epoxy-based structural adhesive between a spar and facesheet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Bailly in view of Elgimiabi with a technique of applying structural adhesive using a brush as taught by Kent, a known suitable technique for applying a liquid adhesive, to yield the predictable result of applying the structural gap filler to large flanges as desired by Bailly.
Claims 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179) in view of Elgimiabi (PG-PUB 2023/0002652), as applied to claim 21, in further view of O’Kane (US 12,163,060).
Regarding claim 28, Bailly in view of Elgimiabi teaches the process as applied to claim 21.
Bailly in view of Elgimiabi does not teach the structural gap filler has a compressive strength of at least 30 ksi.
O’Kane teaches a novel, quick-setting, room-temperature-curable liquid shim material, which combines the room temperature curing and quick setting features of the acrylic-based adhesives with the strong mechanical properties and durability of the epoxy resin-based adhesives, specifically high compression properties and good thermal cycling resistance for liquid shim applications (Col 1, ln 52-66). O’Kane teaches the liquid shims are used to eliminate gaps less than 3 millimeters accommodating an imperfect fit between aerospace bolted joints (see FIG. 1), between carbon-fiber composites and aluminum alloy, composites and composites, aluminum alloy and aluminum alloy (Col 17, ln 20-26). O’Kane teaches the liquid shim composition includes an A-part composition comprising an acrylic-based composition and a B-part composition comprising an epoxy-based composition (Col 17, ln 20-50). O’Kane teaches the cured composition from 28 to 30 kilopound per square inch (ksi), or
when tested at 24° C according to ASTM D695 (Col 15, ln 57-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Bailly in view of Elgimiabi with the compressive strength of the liquid shim of O’Kane, a known suitable compressive strength for a liquid shim adhesive for use between composites, to yield the predictable result of providing a suitable shim adhesive for use in an aircraft.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179) in view of Elgimiabi (PG-PUB 2023/0002652), as applied to claim 21, in further view of Elgimiabi (US 10,059,862).
Regarding claim 28 and 29, Bailly in view of Elgimiabi teaches the process as applied to claim 21.
Bailly in view of Elgimiabi does not teach the structural gap filler has a compressive strength of at least 30 ksi.
Bailly in view of Elgimiabi does not teach the structural gap filler has a compressive strength of at least 60 ksi.
Elgimiabi ‘862 teaches a liquid shimming composition that can also function as an adhesive, wherein the composition is a two-part curable shimming adhesive comprising an epoxy resin (Title; Col 15, ln 1-18; and Col 16, ln 17-27). Elgimiabi ‘862 teaches the adhesive is used to make shims for bonded assemblies, such as for aircraft components (Col 14, ln 54-67; Col 15, ln 19-26; Col 16, ln 3-8). Elgimiabi ‘862 teaches the composition may be injected or applied by syringe (Col 15, ln 1-5). Elgimiabi ‘862 teaches the shimming adhesive compositions will demonstrate high compression strength properties at ambient temperature and elevated temperatures, such as a compression strength of greater than 2500 MPa (362.6 ksi) at 20 degrees Celsius (Col 15, ln 39-47).
Elgimiabi does not explicitly teach the compressive strength of the epoxy-based shimming adhesive, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Bailly in view of Elgimiabi with the compressive strength of the epoxy-based liquid shim of Elgimiabi ‘862, a known suitable compressive strength for a liquid shim adhesive for use between composites, to yield the predictable result of providing a suitable liquid shim adhesive for use in an aircraft.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim 30, 34, and 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179).
Regarding claim 30, 34, and 35, Bailly teaches a method of forming an injection-bonded joint, the method (Figure 1A-3 and 5 and [0064]-[0071])) comprising:
spreading a structural gap filler onto at least one of a first surface of a first component or a second surface of a second component [0050]-[0055];
applying the first component over the second component [0050]-[0052]; and
injecting additional structural gap filler between the first component and second component in the gap between the structural gap filler and the at least one of the first or second component (Figures 6A-6D and [0057]-[0061], [0073])
Bailly teaches a plurality of vent orifices are drilled in the skin to be assembled at the locations of the stiffeners and the diameter of the injection orifices is just necessary for passing the nozzle of the adhesive gun (Bailly, [0053]).Bailly teaches after the structural gap filler is cured, injection is performed in the orifice so as to make the edge of the second structural gap filler advance (Bailly, Figure 6A-6B and [0057]), and injection is performed until the volume of the gap between the orifice is completely filled (Bailly, [0060]), repeating this for each orifice and providing complete filling (Bailly, [0059]-[0062]).
Bailly does not explicitly teach determining if there is a gap present between the structural gap filler and at least one of the first component or the second component.
Bailly does not explicitly teach determining if there is a gap present comprises inspecting the structural gap filler through a hole in at least one of the first component or the second component.
Bailly does not explicitly teach determining if there is a gap present comprises inspecting the structural gap filler at edges of the first component and the second component.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an operator injecting resin into the orifices of Bailly would have naturally inspected the condition of the void in the orifice to see if the gap is suitable for filling and the edges of the joint are indeed sealed, such that a void indeed exists in order to allow for the nozzle to be inserted in the orifice and ensure there is sufficient room for the second structural gap filler to be injected. Performing this step of inspection to confirm the gap is prepared for filling would present no new or unexpected results.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Bailly to incorporate a step of inspecting the gap to confirm the cavity is sealed and the gap exists before filling to yield the predictable result of ensuring the cavity exists and completely filling the volume of the gap as desired by Bailly [0060].
Claim 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179), as applied to claim 30, in further view of Walsh (PG-PUB 2022/0371748).
Regarding claim 31, Bailly teaches the process as applied to claim 30, wherein the structural gap filler is an epoxy adhesive [0052].
Bailly does not teach the structural gap filler and the additional gap filler have the same material properties.
Walsh teaches forming a liquid shim in a gap between components of an aircraft [0090]-[0092], such as a wing [0068], using a movement limiter (Figure 3K-3O, item 40) to confine the expansion of a liquid shim to the gap [0093]. Walsh teaches the movement limiter may be a solid shim 10 or another liquid shim 20 [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Bailly by using materials for the structural gap filler and the additional gap filler, a known suitable configuration for a movement limiter and structural filler as taught by Walsh, to yield the predictable result of filling a gap between composites of an aircraft.
Because the material composition of the additional gap filler of Bailly in view of Walsh would be the same as taught by Walsh, the structural gap filler and the additional gap filler would have the same material properties.
Claim 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179), as applied to claim 30, in further view of Woleader (PG-PUB 2014/0241790).
Regarding claim 32, Bailly teaches the process as applied to claim 30, wherein the structural gap filler has high viscosity [0050].
Bailly does not teach the structural gap filler and the additional gap filler have different shear thinning properties.
Woleader teaches a structural adhesive injected into adhesive chambers (i.e., gaps between a first and second composite) (Figure 11 and 12, [0065], [0066]). Woleader teaches a bondline dam formed from a high-viscosity adhesive to remain in position during bonding and resist pressure of the structural adhesive when injected [0058]. Woleader teaches the structural adhesive may comprise epoxy adhesive or may comprise a thixotropic material having an initially low viscosity to facilitate the flow into the adhesive chamber and through the narrow bondline thickness [0066]. Woleader teaches the structural adhesive may increase in viscosity over time after the adhesive chambers have been filled and/or during curing of the structural adhesive [0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Bailly with the additional gap filler having a lower viscosity than the structural gap filler as taught by Woleader for the benefit of allowing for improved flow into the gap and complete filling of the gap, thereby avoiding bubbles and defects in the cured gap filler assembly and providing structural uniformity and strength.
Because the material composition of the additional gap filler of Bailly in view of Woleader would be different, the structural gap filler and the additional gap filler would have different thinning properties.
Claim 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179), as applied to claim 30, in further view of Kent (PG-PUB 2016/0318597).
Regarding claim 33, Bailly teaches the method as applied to claim 30, wherein the structural gap filler is applied through injection (Bailly, [0060]) and filler may be applied to the entire perimeter of the flange for wide flanges (Bailly, [0050]-[0051]).
Bailly does not teach spreading the structural gap filler comprises spreading the structural gap filler with a least one a squeegee, brush or trowel.
Kent teaches liquid epoxy-based adhesives may be applied with a brush or roller to interface areas between at least one of spar, first panel or second panel [0074]-[0077].
Both Bailly and Kent are drawn to applying an epoxy-based structural adhesive between a spar and facesheet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Bailly with a technique of applying structural adhesive using a brush as taught by Kent in order to apply the structural gap filler to large flanges as desired by
Claim 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179), as applied to claim 37, in further view of Walsh (PG-PUB 2022/0371748).
Regarding claim 38, Bailly teaches the process as applied to claim 37, wherein the structural gap filler is an epoxy adhesive [0052].
Bailly does not teach the structural gap filler and the additional gap filler have the same material properties.
Walsh teaches forming a liquid shim in a gap between components of an aircraft [0090]-[0092], such as a wing [0068], using a movement limiter (Figure 3K-3O, item 40) to confine the expansion of a liquid shim to the gap [0093]. Walsh teaches the movement limiter may be a solid shim 10 or another liquid shim 20 [0093].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Bailly by using materials for the structural gap filler and the additional gap filler, a known suitable configuration for a movement limiter and structural filler as taught by Walsh, to yield the predictable result of filling a gap between composites of an aircraft.
Because the material composition of the additional gap filler of Bailly in view of Walsh would be the same as taught by Walsh, the structural gap filler and the additional gap filler would have the same material properties.
Claim 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailly (PG-PUB 2014/0346179), as applied to claim 37, in further view of Woleader (PG-PUB 2014/0241790).
Regarding claim 39, Bailly teaches the process as applied to claim 37, wherein the structural gap filler has high viscosity [0050].
Bailly does not teach the structural gap filler and the additional gap filler have different shear thinning properties.
Woleader teaches a structural adhesive injected into adhesive chambers (i.e., gaps between a first and second composite) (Figure 11 and 12, [0065], [0066]). Woleader teaches a bondline dam formed from a high-viscosity adhesive to remain in position during bonding and resist pressure of the structural adhesive when injected [0058]. Woleader teaches the structural adhesive may comprise epoxy adhesive or may comprise a thixotropic material having an initially low viscosity to facilitate the flow into the adhesive chamber and through the narrow bondline thickness [0066]. Woleader teaches the structural adhesive may increase in viscosity over time after the adhesive chambers have been filled and/or during curing of the structural adhesive [0066].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Bailly with the additional gap filler having a lower viscosity than the structural gap filler as taught by Woleader for the benefit of allowing for improved flow into the gap and complete filling of the gap, thereby avoiding bubbles and defects in the cured gap filler assembly and providing structural uniformity and strength.
Because the material composition of the additional gap filler of Bailly in view of Woleader would be different, the structural gap filler and the additional gap filler would have different thinning properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 5712721095. 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.
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights