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 Amendment
Claim 1, 11 are currently amended.
Claims 2-10 are original.
Claim 12 is withdrawn – currently amended.
Claims 13-21 are cancelled.
Claims 22-30 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
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 1, 3, 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289).
Regarding claim 1, Guillemette discloses an additive manufacturing print head as part of a printer (see 3D printer / additive manufacturing printing of title & abs; structures of Fig. 12) comprising:
a spinneret (see Fig. 9d, side-by-side filament joiner as detailed in [0177] – there is a single outlet channel with two inlets / filament sources) defining a first channel (see outlet) configured to receive a first feedstock (see lower filament, Id.) and a second channel (see upper channel, Id.), wherein the spinneret is configured to provide a bilayer extrudate (see two layers of extrudate associated with each filament) comprising a layer of the first feedstock in direct contact with a layer of the second feedstock (see Fig. 9d – they are in direct contact);
a minimizer (see joining head portion where the area is decreasing along the flow path) configured to receive the bilayer extrudate from the spinneret and to reduce a flow area of bilayer extrudate transverse to a flow direction of the bilayer extrudate (see Fig. 9d, the cross-sectional area of the printer decreases along a direction perpendicular / transverse the flow direction); and
a multiplier (see structure of Fig. 12 which transforms the bilayer extrudate into a 4-layer extrudate) configured to (capable of in an apparatus / product claim – satisfied by Guillemette) transform the bilayer extrudate from the minimizer to a multilayer extrudate, wherein the multilayer extrudate comprises alternating layers of the first and second feedstock.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (multiplier)][AltContent: textbox (minimizer)][AltContent: textbox (spinneret)]
PNG
media_image1.png
540
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guillemette fails to disclose a first and second syringes located upstream of the spinneret as recited in independent claim 1.
The Guillemette reference fails to disclose a first syringe configured to contain a first feedstock comprising a first flowable material; a second syringe configured to contain a second feedstock comprising a second flowable material.
Kuster discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (see title which discloses electrospinning printing device; apparatus / printer of Fig. 5) for producing fibers (see microfibers of [0051]) including a plurality of printing heads (see printing heads 200 of [0063] & [0068]), each of which includes a syringe ([0072], syringe) to contain feedstocks comprising flowable materials (see pneumatic force of fluids, Id.) to deliver materials (the claim does not positively recite whether the first and second flowable materials are the same or different materials and, additionally, the apparatus structures of Kuster are interpreted as capable of processing / being fed the same or different materials) including a spinneret (see 210 of [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the first and second syringes of Kuster with the additive manufacturing print head containing a spinneret with two channels, minimizer and multiplier of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results – KSR Rationale A. Since Guillemette and Kuster were both directed to additive manufacturing printheads, their combination had a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Guillemette’s Fig. 12 shows that the structure recited in the claim results in a multi-layered extrudate of 4-layers.
Regarding claim 23, the combination Guillemette / Kuster discloses further comprising the first and second feedstock (see combining different materials of abs, Fig. 12 shows different materials – [0191] details that the multiple / two or more filaments are combined in the filament / printing head).
Regarding claim 24, the combination Guillemette / Kuster meets the limitation wherein the first feedstock and the second feedstock are immiscible.
Note claim 1 says [first / second] “syringe configured to contain…”.
Examiner has interpreted that as an intended uses of the recited structures rather than a structure of the apparatus / product that is a positive recitation that it does contain.
If the claim recited that the syringes contain a [first / second, respective] feedstock[s], then Examiner would need to search and find it.
Regarding claim 25, the combination Guillemette / Kuster discloses wherein a difference in viscosity between the first feedstock and the second feedstock at room temperature is approximately zero.
Note claim 1 says [first / second] “syringe configured to contain…”.
Examiner has interpreted that as an intended uses of the recited structures rather than a structure of the apparatus / product that is a positive recitation that it does contain.
If the claim recited that the syringes contain a [first / second, respective] feedstock[s], then Examiner would need to search and find it.
Regarding claim 26, the combination Kuster / Guillemette meets the limitation wherein the first feedstock, the second feedstock or both comprise a polymer and a solvent (this has been interpreted to broadly and reasonably be interpreted as both feedstocks can contain multiple materials, or one feedstock includes a polymer and the other a solvent).
Note claim 1 says [first / second] “syringe configured to contain…”.
Examiner has interpreted that as an intended uses of the recited structures rather than a structure of the apparatus / product that is a positive recitation that it does contain.
If the claim recited that the syringes contain a [first / second] feedstock[s] as polymer and solvent, respectively, then Examiner would need to search and find it.
Regarding claim 27, the combination Guillemette / Kuster meets the limitation wherein the polymer comprises polyvinylalcohol (PVA).
Note claim 1 says [first / second] “syringe configured to contain…”.
Examiner has interpreted that as an intended uses of the recited structures rather than a structure of the apparatus / product that is a positive recitation that it does contain.
If the claim recited that the syringes contain a [first / second] feedstock[s] as either PVA, then Examiner would need to search and find it.
Regarding claim 28, the combination Guillemette / Kuster meets the limitation wherein the solvent comprises dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO).
Note claim 1 says [first / second] “syringe configured to contain…”.
Examiner has interpreted that as an intended uses of the recited structures rather than a structure of the apparatus / product that is a positive recitation that it does contain.
If the claim recited that the syringes contain a [first / second] feedstock[s] as either dimethyl sulfoxide, then Examiner would need to search and find it.
Regarding claim 29, the combination Guillemette / Kuster meets the limitation wherein the first feedstock the second feedstock, or both comprise nanostructures.
Note claim 1 says [first / second] “syringe configured to contain…”.
Examiner has interpreted that as an intended uses of the recited structures rather than a structure of the apparatus / product that is a positive recitation that it does contain.
If the claim recited that the syringes contain a [first / second] feedstock[s] as either dimethyl sulfoxide, then Examiner would need to search and find it.
Regarding claim 30, the combination Guillemette / Kuster meets the limitation wherein the first feedstock, the second feedstock or both contain dispersions.
Note claim 1 says [first / second] “syringe configured to contain…”.
Examiner has interpreted that as an intended uses of the recited structures rather than a structure of the apparatus / product that is a positive recitation that it does contain.
If the claim recited that the syringes contain a [first / second] feedstock[s] as either dimethyl sulfoxide, then Examiner would need to search and find it.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289), and Lewis (US 2020/0061910).
Regarding claim 2, the combination Guillemette / Kuster fails to disclose a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the multiplier and to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate in a plane transverse to the flow direction of the multilayer extrudate.
Lewis discloses a reducer (see tapered nozzle 434 of [0046 & Fig. 5B) configured to receive the multilayered extrudate (see core-shell filament – Id.; see also extruded multi-layer filament of [0031]), to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate (see control over the cross-sectional dimensions of the filament by varying flow rate and pressure of material flowing through the respective channels of [0046]) in a plane transverse to the flow direction (interpreted as up-down / z-axis parallel / vertical direction – see Fig. 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the tapered nozzle configuration of Lewis to the additive manufacturing print head of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so allowed for the creation of providing extrusion of one or more materials with a stable circular cross-section ([0036]) – KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
When the tapered nozzle is added from Lewis to the output of the multiplier of Guillemette such that it creates a stable circular cross-section as was desired by Lewis and generally in additive manufacturing arts, such as Guillemette and Kuster, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added it to the output of the multiplier to create a stable circular cross-section of flow from the multiplier, and therefore, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Lewis has a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the multiplier.
The reducer is taken as having an identical function and structure as the minimizer as recited in claim 1 above, however, the claim requires a second / additional one of such structures as downstream of the multiplier rather than upstream of it, as the minimizer is treated above.
Claims 4, 6-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289), and Singer (US 2010/0098126).
Regarding claim 4, the combination Guillemette / Kuster discloses a four-layered extrudate from a single multiplier system operating on a bilayer extrudate and recognizes that the extrudate may comprise a coextrusion of 2-20 layers ([0044], [0152]), however, fails to disclose a structure / additional multiplier configured to receive the multilayer from the multiplier and to double a number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate for achieving that result.
Singer discloses an additive manufacturing printhead (title, abs, Fig. 4) operating on a bilayer extrudate, and gives an example in which the number of multipliers is 2, where adding a second multiplier doubles the number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate exiting the die of the final multiplier ([0042]-[0043] & [0053]). Singer discloses that layers of an article formed can be from 2-500,000 ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second multiplier to achieve an 8-layered extrudate as in Singer within the additive manufacturing printhead of Guillemette as the number of multipliers was a species disclosed in an example of Singer to create an object with 8-layer extrudate deposited in a single pass of the printhead with a bilayer extrudate input with the print head for forming multi-layered extrudates of Guillemette.
Regarding claim 6, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer discloses wherein the multiplier and the additional / second multiplier are configured to transform the bilayer extrudate into an eight-layer extrudate in a specific embodiment where the number of multipliers is 2, as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination Guillemette / Kuster fails to disclose one or more (an additional) multiplier configured to receive the multilayer from the multiplier and to double a number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate.
Singer discloses an additive manufacturing printhead (title, abs, Fig. 4) operating on a bilayer extrudate, and gives an example in which the number of multipliers is 2, where adding a second multiplier doubles the number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate exiting the die of the final multiplier ([0042]-[0043] & [0053]). Singer discloses that layers of an article formed can be from 2-500,000 ([0008]). Singer teaches additive manufacturing systems (see title, abs) with multipliers ([0042]-[0043]) where the number of multipliers denoted as a variable n. n can be 2, therefore the disclosure of Singer of 2 multipliers is interpreted as
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second multiplier as in Singer within the additive manufacturing printhead of Guillemette as the number of multipliers was a species disclosed in an example of Singer to create an object in less passes of the printhead, thereby reducing manufacturing time and costs – KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Regarding claim 8, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer discloses multiple multipliers (see [0053] as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above, the claim from which this claim depends), and goes on to disclose the claim limitation wherein the multiplier and the one or more additional multipliers are configured to transform the bilayer extrudate to a multilayer extrudate having 2(n+1) layers, where n is the total number of multipliers in the system.
Regarding claim 9, the combination Guillemette / Kuster fails to disclose further comprising (n-1) additional multipliers coupled in series, wherein each of the (n-1) multipliers is configured to double a number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate provided to each of the (n-1) additional multipliers.
Singer teaches additive manufacturing systems (see title, abs) with multipliers ([0042]-[0043]) of various numbers, and goes on to recognize the relationship between the number of layers formed by the exit die and the total number of multipliers in the system ([0053]).
Since there are 2 multipliers total in the Singer example as detailed above and in the cited portions, there are also necessarily (n-1)=(2-1)=1 additional multipliers in that cited example, where a multiplier is necessarily configured to double a number of alternating layers of the multilayer extrudate provided to the each of the (n-1) multipliers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second multiplier as in Singer within the additive manufacturing printhead of Guillemette as the number of multipliers was a species disclosed in an example of Singer to create an object in less passes of the printhead, thereby reducing manufacturing time and costs – KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
Regarding claim 11, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer discloses a printer comprising the print head of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above – the printhead of the combination is part of a printer).
Guillemette fails to disclose wherein the apparatus further includes a plotter.
Kuster discloses an additive manufacturing printhead (see title, abs) wherein the apparatus further includes a plotter (see xyz gantry of Kuster [0012], [0087] and Fig. 5) coupled to the additive manufacturing print head (see printing head, Id.), wherein the plotter is configured to translate the print head in three dimensions (see x, y and z dimensions as perpendicular Cartesian coordinates) relative to a printing substrate (see the structure that the object prints the layers onto of Kuster collector 300 of Fig. 5 & [0087]), thereby forming a three-dimensional printed object (manner of operation / intended uses) on the printing substrate (manner of operation / intended uses – satisfied, Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the xyz plotter of Kuster to the additive manufacturing printhead of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results – KSR Rationale A. Since both Kuster and Guillemette were both in the same field of additive manufacturing printheads, their combination had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289), Singer (US 2010/0098126), and Lewis (US 2020/0061910).
Regarding claim 5, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer fails to disclose a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the additional multiplier and to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate in a plane transverse to the flow direction of the multilayer extrudate.
Lewis discloses a reducer (see tapered nozzle 434 of [0046] & Fig. 5B) configured to receive the multilayered extrudate (see core-shell filament – Id.; see also extruded multi-layer filament of [0031]), to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate (see control over the cross-sectional dimensions of the filament by varying flow rate and pressure of material flowing through the respective channels of [0046]) in a plane transverse to the flow direction (interpreted as up-down / z-axis parallel / vertical direction – see Fig. 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the tapered nozzle configuration of Lewis to the additive manufacturing print head of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so allowed for the creation of providing extrusion of one or more materials with a stable circular cross-section ([0036]) – KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
When the tapered nozzle is added from Lewis to the output of the multiplier of Guillemette such that it creates a stable circular cross-section as was desired by Lewis and generally in additive manufacturing arts, such as Guillemette and Kuster, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added it to the output of the multiplier to create a stable circular cross-section of flow from the multiplier, and therefore, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Lewis has a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the multiplier.
The reducer is taken as having an identical function and structure as the minimizer as recited in claim 1 above, however, the claim requires a second / additional one of such structures as downstream of the multiplier rather than upstream of it, as the minimizer is treated above.
Applicant has not demonstrated a new and unexpected result of the claimed configuration.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289), Singer (US 2010/0098126), and Lewis (US 2020/0061910).
Regarding claim 10, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer discloses a result-effective variable between the number of multipliers and the number of output layers of the multi-layered extrudate from the additive manufacturing printhead, however, fails to disclose further comprising a reducer to receive the multilayer extrudate from the additional multipliers and to modify a dimension of the multilayer extrudate in a plane transverse to the flow direction of the multilayer extrudate. In a particular example detailed in Singer [0042]-[0043], n-1=2-1=1 additional multiplier creates an output multi-layer extrudate of 8 layers.
The combination modified Guillemette / Kuster / Singer fails to disclose further comprising a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the additional multiplier and to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate in a plane transverse to the flow direction of the multilayer extrudate.
Lewis discloses a reducer (see tapered nozzle 434 of [0046] & Fig. 5B) configured to receive the multilayered extrudate (see core-shell filament – Id.; see also extruded multi-layer filament of [0031]), to modify the dimensions of the multilayer extrudate (see control over the cross-sectional dimensions of the filament by varying flow rate and pressure of material flowing through the respective channels of [0046]) in a plane transverse to the flow direction (interpreted as up-down / z-axis parallel / vertical direction – see Fig. 5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the tapered nozzle configuration of Lewis to the additive manufacturing print head of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so allowed for the creation of providing extrusion of one or more materials with a stable circular cross-section ([0036]) – KSR Rationale G – teaching, suggestion, motivation.
When the tapered nozzle is added from Lewis to the output of the multiplier of Guillemette such that it creates a stable circular cross-section as was desired by Lewis and generally in additive manufacturing arts, such as Guillemette and Kuster, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added it to the output of the multiplier to create a stable circular cross-section of flow from the multiplier, and therefore, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Lewis has a reducer configured to receive the multilayer extrudate from the multiplier.
The reducer is taken as having an identical function and structure as the minimizer as recited in claim 1 above, however, the claim requires a second / additional one of such structures as downstream of the multiplier rather than upstream of it, as the minimizer is treated above.
The reducer is taken as having an identical function as the minimizer as recited in claim 1 above, however, it is downstream of the multiplier rather than upstream of it as the minimizer is.
Applicant has not demonstrated a new and unexpected result of the claimed configuration.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillemette (US 2016/0297104), and further in view of Kuster (US 20200063289), Singer (US 2010/0098126), and Lewis 2 (US 2016/0198576).
Regarding claim 22, the combination Guillemette / Kuster / Singer fails to disclose wherein the printer has a positional accuracy in a range of 5-15 microns.
Lewis discloses an additive manufacturing / three-dimensional (see title, abs) printhead ([0085]) wherein the printer has a positional accuracy of within plus or minus 10 microns in some cases (Id.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dimensional / positional accuracy of Lewis to the additive manufacturing printhead of Guillemette to arrive at the claimed invention before the effective filing date because doing so was an exercise in combining prior art elements according to known results – KSR Rationale A. Since both Lewis and Guillemette were both in the field of additive manufacturing / 3D printing, their combination had a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Citation of relevant, pertinent prior art:
Sun (US 2008/0145639) Fig. 5 discloses two syringes which deposit different liquids to the build platform.
Jaker (US 2016/0122541) discloses immiscible materials for use in additive manufacturing methods.
Park (US 2008/0160290) discloses composite manufacturing methods of structures (see title, abs, Figs. 3-4) wherein the two polymers are immiscible and remain in separate phases ([0034]).
Sugai (US 2017/0182798) discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (see apparatus 100 of [0055]) wherein two materials containing different components are discharged from first and second head units (110a and 11b, Id. – these are interpreted as broadly and reasonably mapping to the first and second syringes of Kuster).
OBarske (US 2018/0338394) discloses an additive manufacturing-based printing apparatus (see title, abs, [0043], Fig. 4) wherein the polymer comprises polyvinyl alcohol (Id.).
Park (US 2008/0160290) discloses (see [0015] of Park – the range of viscosity ratios of the first to second polymers is from 0.5-1.5 as an overlapping range to the claimed range of viscosity ratios of 1.0 – the viscosity ratios are factors of temperature, molecular weight, and other factors as art-0recognized variables for modification that would have been optimized by routine experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art). Furthermore, the viscosity ratio is determined at an equal temperature of the two materials (first and second polymer - Park [0034]).
Farrugia (US 2022/0389145) [0133] discloses wherein the materials are processed from room temperature to processing temperature (Id.), wherein there is a ratio of or difference between the polymer and the carrier / solvent (Id.) viscosities is near zero.
Having the viscosities similar at room temperature allowed for the extrusion of the two materials at similar speeds / flowrates / velocities given equal pressure variations across the pumps, as governed by the fundamental principles of fluid dynamics (as evidenced by Young – US 2003/0226806 – [0008]), which was desirable because it created uniform amounts of extruded / deposited materials in the multi-layered laminate from the extruder.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 GUY F MONGELLI whose telephone number is (571)270-7904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM 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, SAM ZHAO can be reached on (571)270-5343. 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.
/GUY F MONGELLI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights