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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 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 17, is “a horizontal direction” in line 17 supposed to be the same as or different from “a horizontal direction” in line 39? For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating them as the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suematsu (JP 2015-067501 A; using the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Suematsu teaches a method of manufacturing a Si-SiC-based composite structure, comprising a step of impregnating a molten metal containing Si (Si chunk 15, see Fig. 1; [0020]) into a molded body containing SiC (porous SiC body 10, see Fig. 1; [0020]) by heating a supply body containing Si (Si chunk 15, see Fig. 1; [0020]) under a state in which the molded body (porous SiC body 10, see Fig. 1; [0020]) is in contact with a deformation suppressing member (plurality of supports 16, see Fig. 1; [0020]-[0026]) configured to suppress deformation of the molded body (see [0025]-[0033]) and in which the supply body is in contact with the molded body (see Fig. 1 – Si chunk 15 in indirect contact with porous body 10).
Regarding claim 15, Suematsu teaches wherein the deformation suppressing member contains at least one kind of material selected from carbon, boron nitride, alumina, or platinum (see [0025]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suematsu (JP 2015-067501 A; using the attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 12, Suematsu is silent to:
wherein the deformation suppressing member is configured to suppress deformation of a plurality of molded bodies,
wherein the plurality of molded bodies are aligned in a direction orthogonal to longitudinal directions of the plurality of molded bodies and are in contact with each other, and
wherein the deformation suppressing member includes:
a first contact portion configured to be brought into contact with the molded body located at one end of the plurality of molded bodies; and
a second contact portion, which is located on an opposite side of the first contact portion with respect to the plurality of molded bodies, and is configured to be brought into contact with the molded body located at another end of the plurality of molded bodies.
However, this can merely be a duplication of a single preform and support member of Suematsu (see Fig. 1 – duplicating the support member 16 and preform 10 to be at least two) to multiple support members, wherein the multiple support members are equated to a single support member, supporting multiple preforms. Furthermore, a first contact portion would be a first support member 16 in contact with the molded body at one end of the plurality of molded bodies and a second contact portion would be a second support member 16 in contact with another molded body at the other end of the plurality of molded bodies, and the plurality of molded bodies are aligned in a direction orthogonal to longitudinal directions of the plurality of molded bodies and are in indirect contact with each other (as the support members 16 can all be connected (see [0026])).
Applicant is reminded that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 8-11, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suematsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rocazella et al. (US 5,298,283; hereinafter “Rocazella”).
Regarding claim 2, Suematsu is silent to
wherein the deformation suppressing member is a cradle having a support surface along an outer shape of the molded body, and
wherein the molten metal is impregnated into the molded body under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle.
Rocazella teaches a supportive structural refractory material surrounds at least a substantial portion of a filler material or preform and provides external structural support. Specifically, a filler material or preform may be placed within a rigid structure so as to prevent the filler material or preform from deforming during any portion of the spontaneous infiltration process. Alternatively, a refractory material mixture could be coated upon an exterior surface of a preform or filler material and become structurally supportive. The physical container and/or the refractory coating surrounding a preform or filler material can be of any desirable composition and/or thickness with the primary selection criteria being that the material does not adversely affect spontaneous infiltration and that the material functions as a rigidizing means (15:48-63).
In view of Rocazella’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Suematsu to include wherein the deformation suppressing member is a cradle having a support surface along an outer shape of the molded body, and wherein the molten metal is impregnated into the molded body under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle, as taught by Rocazella, because it helps to prevent the preform from deforming during any portion of the spontaneous infiltration process.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella is silent to wherein the support surface covers 30% or more of an outer surface of the molded body under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle. However, as Rocazella teaches that the support structure surrounds at least a substantial portion of a filler material or preform and provides external structural support (Rocazella: see 15:48-63), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the support surface cover 30% or more of an outer surface of the molded body under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle to prevent the preform from deforming during any portion of the spontaneous infiltration process.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella teaches wherein the support surface has a coating layer formed thereon (Rocazella: 21:35-47 - The filler material may comprise a substrate, such as carbon or other non-ceramic material, bearing a ceramic coating to protect the substrate from attack or degradation).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella teaches
wherein the support surface has a groove formed therein (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – grooves equated to spaces formed between supports 16), and
wherein the groove forms a gap between the molded body and the cradle under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 and [0026] – the supports can be connected to each other and so the spaces between the supports 16 form a gap between the molded body and the cradle of supports 16).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella teaches
wherein the cradle includes a first base (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – any one of the supports 16) having a first surface (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – a first surface equated to the portion of the support 16 in direct contact with the porous SiC body 10) and a second base (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – any one of the supports 16 besides the one chosen above) having a second surface (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – a second surface equated to the portion of the second base in direct contact with the porous SiC body 10),
wherein the molded body is arranged on the first base and the second base (Suematsu: see Fig. 1), and
wherein the first surface and the second surface function as the support surface under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the first base and the second base (Suematsu: see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella teaches
wherein the deformation suppressing member (Suematsu: plurality of supports 16, see Fig. 1; [0020]-[0026]) includes:
a first contact portion configured to be brought into contact with the molded body (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – any one of the supports 16 having a first contact portion, equated to the portion of the support 16 in direct contact with the porous SiC body 10); and
a second contact portion, which is located away from the first contact portion in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the molded body, and is configured to be brought into contact with the molded body (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – any one of the other supports 16 besides the one above, spaced away from the first contact portion in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the molded body (the left-right direction in Fig. 1) configured to be brought into direct contact with the porous SiC body 10).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella teaches wherein the first contact portion (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – any one of the supports 16 having a first contact portion, equated to the portion of the support 16 in direct contact with the porous SiC body 10) and the second contact portion (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – any one of the other supports 16 besides the one chosen to be the first contact portion) are configured to be brought into contact with the molded body in a horizontal direction (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – horizontal direction chosen to be direction in and out of page, i.e., parallel to the direction that the supports 16 extend in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella teaches wherein the deformation suppressing member includes a third contact portion (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 – any one of the other supports 16 besides the ones chosen to be the first and second contact portions) configured to be brought into contact with the molded body in a vertical direction (Suematsu: see Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suematsu and Rocazella as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Koga (US 2020/0165169; listed in the IDS filed 23 April 2024).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella is silent to wherein the molded body has a cylindrical shape.
Koga teaches a SiC preform that has a cylindrical shape (see Fig. 11a – degreased body 10C; see [0048]-[0049] and [0072]).
In view of Koga’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella to include wherein the molded body has a cylindrical shape, as taught by Koga, because it is a known shape for a SiC preform. Furthermore, absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape is significant, the shape of the preform is a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Suematsu, Rocazella, and Koga teaches wherein the molded body is arranged on the cradle so that an axis of the molded body is parallel to a horizontal direction (Since “an axis of the molded body” is not limited and can be any axis, and a horizontal direction can also be any direction, there must be an instance in which an axis of the molded body is parallel to a horizontal direction in the combination of Suematsu, Rocazella, and Koga).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Suematsu, Rocazella, and Koga is silent to wherein the support surface has an arc shape, and
wherein the support surface has a radius of curvature that is 1/2 or more of an outer diameter of the molded body and 1/2+0.3 mm or less of the outer diameter of the molded body.
Though the combination of Suematsu, Rocazella, and Koga is silent to wherein the support surface has an arc shape, absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape is significant, the shape of the support surface is a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Though the combination of Suematsu, Rocazella, and Koga is silent to wherein the support surface has a radius of curvature that is 1/2 or more of an outer diameter of the molded body and 1/2+0.3 mm or less of the outer diameter of the molded body, the combination of Suematsu, Rocazella and Koga teaches the supportive structural refractory material surrounds at least a substantial portion of a filler material or preform and provides external structural support (Rocazella: see 15:48-63). If the radius of curvature of the support surface was very small, it would not fit the cylindrical shaped mold body. On the other hand, if the radius of curvature of the support surface was very large, it would not provide the required external structural support to the molded body. Therefore, there must be an optimum radius of curvature for the support surface and it would not be inventive to discover this optimum range through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
Claim(s)16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suematsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koga (US 2020/0165169; listed in the IDS filed 23 April 2024).
Regarding claim 16, Suematsu is silent to wherein the molded body has a honeycomb structure.
Koga teaches a preform which has a honeycomb structure (molded body 1A with honeycomb structure 10, see Figs. 4-6; see [0038]-[0039] and [0057]) for use as a heat exchanger (see [0038]-[0039]).
In view of Koga’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Suematsu to include wherein the molded body has a honeycomb structure, as taught by Koga, because it is a known shape for a preform used to fabricate heat exchangers. Furthermore, absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape is significant, the shape of the molded body is a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suematsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kienzle et al. (US 2011/0003138; hereinafter “Kienzle”).
Regarding claim 7, Suematsu is silent to wherein the supply body is arranged on an inner side of the molded body.
Kienzle teaches it is known to place powdered metal (Si particles 6, see Figs. 1-2; [0016]-[0020]) into an opening (reservoir 3, see Figs. 1-2; [0016]-[0020]) of a preform (porous carbon body 1, see Fig. 1, or porous initial body 5, see Fig. 2; [0016]-[0020]) and melting the powder to infiltrate the preform (see [0020]).
In view of Kienzle’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Suematsu to include wherein the supply body is arranged on an inner side of the molded body, as taught by Kienzle, because it is a known means of providing a metal to be melted to infiltrate a porous preform.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suematsu (JP 2015-067501 A; using the attached English machine translation), in view of Rocazella (US 5,298,283), Koga (US 2020/0165169; listed in the IDS filed 23 April 2024), and Kienzle (US 2011/0003138).
Regarding claim 17, Suematsu teaches a method of manufacturing a Si-SiC-based composite structure, comprising a step of impregnating a molten metal containing Si (Si chunk 15, see Fig. 1; [0020]) into a molded body containing SiC (porous SiC body 10, see Fig. 1; [0020]) by heating a supply body containing Si (Si chunk 15, see Fig. 1; [0020]) under a state in which the molded body (porous SiC body 10, see Fig. 1; [0020]) is in contact with a deformation suppressing member (plurality of supports 16, see Fig. 1; [0020]-[0026]) configured to suppress deformation of the molded body (see [0025]-[0033]) and in which the supply body is in contact with the molded body (see Fig. 1 – Si chunk 15 in indirect contact with porous body 10). Suematsu teaches wherein the deformation suppressing member contains at least one kind of material selected from carbon, boron nitride, alumina, or platinum (see [0025]). Suematsu teaches wherein the support surface has a groove formed therein (see Fig. 1 – grooves equated to spaces formed between supports 16). Suematsu teaches wherein the deformation suppressing member (plurality of supports 16, see Fig. 1; [0020]-[0026]) includes: a first contact portion configured to be brought into contact with the molded body (see Fig. 1 – any one of the supports 16 having a first contact portion, equated to the portion of the support 16 in direct contact with the porous SiC body 10), and a second contact portion, which is located away from the first contact portion in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the molded body, and is configured to be brought into contact with the molded body (see Fig. 1 – any one of the other supports 16 besides the one above, spaced away from the first contact portion in a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the molded body (the left-right direction in Fig. 1) configured to be brought into direct contact with the porous SiC body 10). Suematsu teaches wherein the first contact portion (the first contact portion chosen above) and the second contact portion (the second contact portion chosen above) are configured to be brought into contact with the molded body in a horizontal direction (see Fig. 1 – horizontal direction chosen to be direction in and out of page, i.e., parallel to the direction that the supports 16 extend in Fig. 1).
Suematsu is silent to:
wherein the deformation suppressing member is a cradle having a support surface along an outer shape of the molded body,
wherein the support surface covers 30% or more of an outer surface of the molded body under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle,
wherein the molded body has a cylindrical shape,
wherein the molded body is arranged on the cradle so that an axis of the molded body is parallel to a horizontal direction,
wherein the support surface has an arc shape,
wherein the support surface has a radius of curvature that is 1/2 or more of an outer diameter of the molded body and 1/2+0.3 mm or less of the outer diameter of the molded body,
wherein the supply body is arranged on an inner side of the molded body,
wherein the support surface has a coating layer formed thereon,
wherein the groove forms a gap between the molded body and the cradle under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle,
wherein the molded body has a honeycomb structure.
Rocazella teaches a supportive structural refractory material surrounds at least a substantial portion of a filler material or preform and provides external structural support. Specifically, a filler material or preform may be placed within a rigid structure so as to prevent the filler material or preform from deforming during any portion of the spontaneous infiltration process. Alternatively, a refractory material mixture could be coated upon an exterior surface of a preform or filler material and become structurally supportive. The physical container and/or the refractory coating surrounding a preform or filler material can be of any desirable composition and/or thickness with the primary selection criteria being that the material does not adversely affect spontaneous infiltration and that the material functions as a rigidizing means (15:48-63). Rocazella teaches that the filler material may comprise a substrate, such as carbon or other non-ceramic material, bearing a ceramic coating to protect the substrate from attack or degradation (see 21:35-47).
In view of Rocazella’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Suematsu to include wherein the deformation suppressing member is a cradle having a support surface along an outer shape of the molded body, and wherein the molten metal is impregnated into the molded body under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle, as taught by Rocazella, because it helps to prevent the preform from deforming during any portion of the spontaneous infiltration process. Furthermore, in view of Rocazella’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed wherein the support surface has a coating layer formed thereon, as taught by Rocazella, because a ceramic coating can protect the substrate from attack or degradation (see 21:35-47). Additionally, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella teaches wherein the molded body is arranged on the cradle so that an axis of the molded body is parallel to a horizontal direction (since “an axis of the molded body” is not limited and can be any axis, there must be an instance in which an axis of the molded body is parallel to the horizontal direction (direction in and out of the page of Fig. 1 of Suematsu as chosen above) in the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella). Furthermore, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella teaches wherein the groove forms a gap between the molded body and the cradle under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle (Suematsu: see Fig. 1 and [0026] – the supports can be connected to each other and so the spaces between the supports 16 form a gap between the molded body and the cradle of supports 16).
The combination of Suematsu and Rocazella is silent to wherein the support surface covers 30% or more of an outer surface of the molded body under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle. However, as Rocazella teaches that the support structure surrounds at least a substantial portion of a filler material or preform and provides external structural support (Rocazella: see 15:48-63), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the support surface cover 30% or more of an outer surface of the molded body under a state in which the molded body is arranged on the cradle to prevent the preform from deforming during any portion of the spontaneous infiltration process.
The combination of Suematsu and Rocazella is silent to wherein the support surface has an arc shape; however, absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape is significant, the shape of the support surface is a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
The combination of Suematsu and Rocazella is silent to wherein the support surface has a radius of curvature that is 1/2 or more of an outer diameter of the molded body and 1/2+0.3 mm or less of the outer diameter of the molded body. However, the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella teaches the supportive structural refractory material surrounds at least a substantial portion of a filler material or preform and provides external structural support (Rocazella: see 15:48-63). If the radius of curvature of the support surface was very small, it would not fit the cylindrical shaped mold body. On the other hand, if the radius of curvature of the support surface was very large, it would not provide the required external structural support to the molded body. Therefore, there must be an optimum radius of curvature for the support surface and it would not be inventive to discover this optimum range through routine experimentation. See MPEP §2144.05(II).
The combination of Suematsu and Rocazella is silent to:
wherein the molded body has a cylindrical shape,
wherein the supply body is arranged on an inner side of the molded body,
wherein the molded body has a honeycomb structure.
Koga teaches a SiC preform that has a cylindrical shape (see Fig. 11a – degreased body 10C; see [0048]-[0049] and [0072]), and Koga teaches a preform which has a honeycomb structure (molded body 1A with honeycomb structure 10, see Figs. 4-6; see [0038]-[0039] and [0057]) for use as a heat exchanger (see [0038]-[0039]).
In view of Koga’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella to include wherein the molded body has a cylindrical shape, as taught by Koga, because it is a known shape for a SiC preform. Furthermore, absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape is significant, the shape of the preform is a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). Also in view of Koga’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Suematsu and Rocazella to include wherein the molded body has a honeycomb structure, as taught by Koga, because it is a known shape for a preform used to fabricate heat exchangers. Furthermore, absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape is significant, the shape of the molded body is a matter of choice of which a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found obvious. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
The combination of Suematsu, Rocazella, and Koga is silent to wherein the supply body is arranged on an inner side of the molded body.
Kienzle teaches it is known to place powdered metal (Si particles 6, see Figs. 1-2; [0016]-[0020]) into an opening (reservoir 3, see Figs. 1-2; [0016]-[0020]) of a preform (porous carbon body 1, see Fig. 1, or porous initial body 5, see Fig. 2; [0016]-[0020]) and melting the powder to infiltrate the preform (see [0020]).
In view of Kienzle’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of the combination of Suematsu, Rocazella, and Koga to include wherein the supply body is arranged on an inner side of the molded body, as taught by Kienzle, because it is a known means of providing a metal to be melted to infiltrate a porous preform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 29 September 2025
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights