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/remarks filed on 11/04/2025 have been fully considered.
With respect to the specification objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the specification has/have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s). However, Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) introduced new 112(b) rejections set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of amended claim 1, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
With respect to the rejoinder request, Examiner will rejoin withdrawn clams until a generic claim is found allowable and all the rejoinder requirements are meet.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a driving source configured to drive the pressing member” in claim 24 with corresponding structure/scope disclosed in at least [0041], [0106] of Applicant’s published application.
“a control portion configured to control” in claim 24 with corresponding structure disclosed in at least [0097] of Applicant’s published application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Other Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 4, 18, 21, 24, 28, and 33-34 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For apparatuses, the claim limitations will define structural limitations (See MPEP 2114-2115) or functional limitations properly recited (See MPEP 2173.05 (g)). For instance, “molten resin” has been interpretated below as the material worked upon by the apparatus.
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(s) 33 is/are 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.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “when contact between the injection plunger and the pressing member is detected by the sensor, supply of molten resin is stopped, and metering of supplied molten resin is completed” which is indefinite. The claimed language merely states results obtained, does not provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the language what structure is encompassed by the claim. It unclear what structure of the apparatus stops supply of molten resin based on the detection. It unclear what structure of the apparatus determines completion of the metering based on the detection. Thus, the limitation states results obtained by the apparatus without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g). Furthermore, according to [0065-0066] of Applicant’s specification, the disclosed apparatus needs a controller configured with specific functions to enable the claimed results. Thus, the limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with Applicant’s specification. See MPEP § 2173.03.
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) 4, 21, 24 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda (US 20130309350) with Ikeda (US 20130302468 – of record) as a further evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda discloses a manufacturing apparatus (injection molding apparatus: Abstract, P0001, 0019, Figs. 1 and 4) comprising:
an injection cylinder (body section 95: Fig. 7) to which molten resin (liquid resin) is supplied and which is configured to inject the molten resin (body section 95 reads on the claimed injection cylinder: 0019, 0051, Figs. 4 and 7; See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115);
an injection plunger (plunger 96 comprising accommodating case 116) disposed such that the injection plunger fits in the injection cylinder and moves in a first direction (downward/forward direction) and a second direction (upward/retracting direction) opposite to the first direction (P0051, 0053, Fig. 7);
a pressing member (piston rod 105 which is the pressing member of plunger pusher 97) configured to be able to be separated from the injection plunger and press the injection plunger for moving the injection plunger toward the first direction (P0051-0052, Fig. 7); and
a sensor (proximity sensor 117) configured to detect contact and/or separation between the injection plunger and the pressing member (P0053, 0055, Fig. 7; See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115),
wherein, in a state where the pressing member is separated from the injection plunger, molten resin supplied into the injection cylinder presses the injection plunger to move the injection plunger in the second direction, and contact between the injection plunger and the pressing member is detected by the sensor (Fig. 7 clearly shows and describes a state where 105 is separated from 96, and liquid resin supplied into 95 pushes upward 96 to move 96 in the upward/retracting direction towards 105, and contact between 116 of 96 and 105 is detected by the sensor 117 for the benefit(s) of detecting that the plunger 96 has reached a measured-completed position and determining that the measurement of the predetermined amount of the liquid resin has been completed based on the detection: P0051-0055; Examiner notes that the taught detected contact between 105 and 116 reads/implies/obviates contact between 105 and 96 because 96 comprises 116 and the taught contact detection yields position of 96). See MPEP §§ 2112.01 I, 2114 I-II, and 2115. Thus, Ikeda discloses the apparatus substantially as claimed by applicant.
PNG
media_image1.png
453
309
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If applicant disagrees with Examiner’s interpretation of Ikeda, Examiner further submits that the apparatus/sensor of Ikeda is known/expected to be able detect contact between the plunger and the piston rod, as evidenced by P0089-0090 and Fig. 8 of Ikeda (US 20130302468 – of record).
Regarding claim 21, Ikeda further discloses wherein the injection cylinder includes an injection outlet (94) from which the molten resin is discharged (P0051, Fig. 7), and
wherein the manufacturing apparatus further includes a valve (99) configured to prevent the molten resin from flowing from the injection outlet toward an outside of the injection cylinder (P0051, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 24, Ikeda further discloses a driving source (109) configured to drive the pressing member in the first direction and the second direction (P0052, Fig. 7); and
a control portion (114) configured to control the driving source (P0052, Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 33, Ikeda further discloses/suggests wherein, when contact between the injection plunger and the pressing member is detected by the sensor, supply of molten resin is stopped (inflow valve 98 is closed thereby stopping supply of resin when/after contact of 96 with 116 and 105 is detected by 117: P0055-0056), and metering of supplied molten resin is completed (determined that a measurement/metering of predetermined amount of the liquid resin material has been completed when/after contact of 96 with 116 and 105 is detected by 117: P0055).
Note: Ikeda (US 20130309350) can be combined with other applied secondary references in future 103 rejections.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ujma (US 20080111265 – of record) in view of Ikeda (US 20130302468 – of record).
Regarding claim 4, Ujma discloses a manufacturing apparatus (injection molding machine: P0001, 0032, Fig. 1, and Figs. 5a-f) comprising:
an injection cylinder (33) to which molten resin is supplied and which is configured to inject molten resin (P0001, 0042, 0051, 0058, Fig. 1, Fig. 5a, Fig. 5f);
an injection plunger (38) disposed such that the injection plunger fits in the injection cylinder and moves in a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction (P0042, Fig. 1, Fig. 5a showing first direction, Fig. 5f showing second direction);
a pressing member (34) configured to be able to be separated from the injection plunger (P0055, Fig. 5e) and press the injection plunger for moving the injection plunger toward the first direction (P0051, Fig. 5a); and
a sensor (107) configured to detect contact and/or separation between the injection plunger and the pressing member (107 is capable of detecting contact/abutting between the injection plunger and the pressing member: 0058, Fig. 5f),
wherein, in a state where the pressing member is separated from the injection plunger, molten resin supplied into the injection cylinder presses the injection plunger to move the injection plunger in the second direction (P0055-00057, Fig. 5e-f).
Ujma fails to explicitly disclose that contact between the injection plunger and the pressing member is detected by the sensor in the embodiment shown in Fig. 5.
However, Ujma explicitly discloses that the technique of providing a sensor to measure the instant when an injection plunger (plunger) contacts an injection piston (pressing member) in a state where the injection piston (pressing member) is not connected (i.e., is separated) from the injection plunger and extruded melt (molten resin) presses (pushes) the injection plunger to move the injection plunger in the second direction (backwards) is already known in the art (P0019).
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding apparatuses, Ikeda discloses the technique of providing a sensor (117) configured to detect contact between an injection plunger (96) and a pressing member (piston rod 105) in a state where the injection plunger (96) and the pressing member (piston rod 105) are separated and molten resin (liquid resin) supplied into an injection cylinder (95) presses (pushes up) the injection plunger to move the injection plunger in the second/upward direction (P0090, Fig. 8) for the benefit(s) of obtaining a time measurement when contact between the injection plunger (96) and the pressing member (piston rod 105) is made and/or facilitating measuring a quantity of the resin at the time of contact (P0090, Fig. 8).
Since Ujma envisions/suggests that the timing of contact between the injection plunger and the pressing member is relevant (Abstract, claim 6), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ujma in view of the ordinary knowledge in the art and/or Ikeda by configuring a/the sensor to detect contact between the injection plunger and the pressing member in a state where the pressing member is separated from the injection plunger and molten resin supplied into the injection cylinder presses the injection plunger to move the injection plunger in the second direction for the benefit(s) of yielding the predictable benefit(s) of obtaining a time measurement when contact between the injection plunger and the pressing member is made and/or enabling measuring a quantity of the resin at the time of contact as suggested by ordinary knowledge in the art and/or Ikeda.
Regarding claim 21, Ujma further discloses wherein the injection cylinder includes an injection outlet (24) from which the molten resin is discharged (P0042, 0051, Figs. 1 and 5a), and
wherein the manufacturing apparatus further includes a valve (26) configured to prevent the molten resin from flowing from the injection outlet toward an outside of the injection cylinder (P0042, 0056, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, Ujma further discloses a driving source (36) configured to drive the pressing member in the first direction and the second direction (P0042, Fig. 1); and
a control portion (60) configured to control the driving source (P0045, 0053, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ujma in view of Ikeda as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (JP 2011140062A with full English machine translation – of record).
Regarding claim 18, Ujma, as modified above, fails to disclose wherein at least one of a first portion of the pressing member that faces the injection plunger or a second portion of the injection plunger that faces the pressing member is formed spherical.
However, the difference amounts a mere change in shape of the first portion of the pressing member or that faces the injection plunger or a second portion of the injection plunger that faces the pressing member.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding machines, Yamamoto discloses the technique of making a first portion (10A) of a pressing member (10) that faces an injection plunger (20) spherical for the benefit(s) of allowing disconnection of the pressing member from the injection plunger without a tool and/or allowing pressing even when the pressing direction of the pressing member deviates from a central axis of the injection plunger (pg. 3-4, Figs. 1-2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the apparatus of Ujma in view of Yamamoto by making a first portion of the pressing member that faces the injection plunger spherical for the benefit(s) of allowing/facilitating disconnection of the pressing member from the injection plunger without a tool and/or allowing pressing even when the pressing direction of the pressing member deviates from a central axis of the injection plunger as suggested by Yamamoto.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ujma in view of Ikeda as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Takei (US 20160200022 – of record).
Regarding claim 28, Ujma further discloses wherein the sensor is a position sensor (P0058), but Ujma, as modified above, fails to disclose wherein the position sensor is an optical sensor.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding machines, Takei discloses the technique of using an optical sensor as a suitable position sensor to detect position of a pressing member and/or a plunger (P0056, 0071, Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have known/recognized that an optical sensor is a known suitable position sensor.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Ujma in view of Takei by using an optical sensor as the sensor.
Claim(s) 33 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ujma in view of Ikeda as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fujikawa (US 6390798).
Regarding claim 33, Ujma, as modified above, fails to disclose wherein, when contact between the injection plunger and the pressing member is detected by the sensor, supply of molten resin is stopped, and metering of supplied molten resin is completed.
However, Ikeda further discloses/suggests wherein, when contact between the injection plunger and the pressing member is detected by the sensor, supply of molten resin is stopped (inflow valve 98 is closed thereby stopping supply of resin when/after contact between 96 and 105 is detected by sensor 117: P0089-0091, Fig. 8), and metering of supplied molten resin is completed for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of facilitating metering (judging that measuring/metering of quantity of the liquid resin material has been completed/finish when/after contact between 96 and 105 is detected by sensor 117: P0089-0091, Fig. 8).
Additionally, In the same field of endeavor, injection molding machines, Fujikawa discloses the technique of stopping supply of molten resin to an injection cylinder and completing metering of supplied resin based on detecting that an injection plunger has arrived to a predetermined position for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of facilitating metering (C7, L3-21).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Ujma in view of Ikeda and Fujikawa by stopping supply of molten resin to an injection cylinder and completing metering of supplied resin based on detecting that the injection plunger has arrived to the predetermined position in which contact between the injection plunger and the pressing member is detected by the sensor for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of facilitating metering as suggested by Ikeda and Fujikawa.
Regarding claim 34, Ujma, as modified above, fails to disclose wherein a difference between an inner diameter of the injection cylinder and a diameter of the injection plunger is 2 μm to 50 μm.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding machines, Fujikawa discloses the technique of providing a difference between an inner diameter of an injection cylinder (36) and a diameter of an injection plunger (31a) of approximately 0.02 (i.e., 2 μm) for the benefit(s) of preventing the injection plunger from biting into the injection cylinder during molding operations while maintaining minimal/optima resin leakage between them (C7, L22-40).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Ujma in view of Fujikawa by providing a difference between an inner diameter of the injection cylinder and a diameter of the injection plunger of 2 μm or within the claimed range for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of preventing the injection plunger from biting into the injection cylinder during molding operations while maintaining minimal/optimal resin leakage between them.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US 20130309350) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Fujikawa (US 6390798).
Regarding claim 34, Ikeda fails to disclose wherein a difference between an inner diameter of the injection cylinder and a diameter of the injection plunger is 2 μm to 50 μm.
In the same field of endeavor, injection molding machines, Fujikawa discloses the technique of providing a difference between an inner diameter of an injection cylinder (36) and a diameter of an injection plunger (31a) of approximately 0.02 (i.e., 2 μm) for the benefit(s) of preventing the injection plunger from biting into the injection cylinder during molding operations while maintaining minimal/optimal resin leakage between them (C7, L22-40). Fujikawa further discloses the technique of stopping supply of molten resin to an injection cylinder and completing metering of supplied resin based on detecting that an injection plunger has arrived to a predetermined position (C7, L3-21). Thus, Fujikawa further obviates the subject matter of claim 33.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ikeda in view of Fujikawa by providing a difference between an inner diameter of the injection cylinder and a diameter of the injection plunger of 2 μm or within the claimed range for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of preventing the injection plunger from biting into the injection cylinder during molding operations while maintaining minimal/optimal resin leakage between them.
Conclusion
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 JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743