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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 19-35, in the reply filed on 10/10/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 36-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse (incomplete traversal) in the reply filed on 10/10/2025.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because a patent abstract should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract communicates only that the application relates generally to 3D printing using energy beams and detectors that detect characteristics of a 3D object during its formation. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 19, 25, and 27 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19, in part (c), should read “the at least one detector being configured to generate a result…”
In claim 25, the term “vertical” should be removed prior to “power distribution,” as the phrase “vertical power distribution” is not found in the specification and this term appears to refer to a power distribution specifically as plotted and viewed on a graph (Fig. 6) and is potentially misleading in the claim context.
Claim 27, in lines 1-2, should read “wherein the at least one detector comprises an optical fiber.”
Claims 33-35 each recite that the enclosure is “configured to enclosure,” which should read “configured to enclose.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that the examined claims are directed to a device/apparatus. Recitations directed toward a manner of operating a device do not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. MPEP 2114(II). Furthermore, materials or articles worked upon by an apparatus in its intended use do not impart patentability to the claims. MPEP 2115.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 19-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claim 19 (new claims introduced in preliminary amendment 11/09/2023) recites in part (c), “the at least one detector configured to, during the printing, detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint, the at least one characteristic being of the energy beam and/or of the target surface…” In terms of detecting a characteristic at the footprint via the reflected/returning beam specifically (see detector(s) 1120, 1125, 1127, 1129 in Fig. 11; 1720 in Fig. 17), the specification describes only using this detection to detect one or more characteristics of the target surface ([00211], [00219], [00235]-[00239]), e.g., detecting a temperature of the material/target at a position at/near the footprint or performing imaging of the target surface (e.g., melt pool, its vicinity) to determine properties of the surface or perform thermal analysis. In terms of detecting a characteristic of the energy beam itself (the beam emitted from the energy source), the specification describes the deflected beam detector configuration ([00213]); however, this configuration specifically measures characteristics of the radiation before it interacts with the target surface and not the reflected energy beam ([00213], [00219]). Accordingly, the full scope of the new claim is not adequately supported by the original disclosure.
New claims 22 and 23 specifically require the at least one detector to detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic of the energy beam at the footprint, which is not adequately supported by the original disclosure as set forth above for claim 19. Regarding claim 23, the only description of a detection of a power characteristic of the energy beam appears to be associated with the deflected beam detector ([00213], detector 1728 in Fig. 17). As described above, this detector specifically measures a portion of the beam before it interacts with the target surface and therefore is distinct from the detector(s) of claim 19 configured to detect the reflected beam from the footprint at the target surface.
New claim 30 recites that “the at least one detector comprises a deflected beam detector configured to detect one or more characteristics of the energy beam before it impinges on the target surface.” New claim 19, from which claim 30 depends, requires that the at least one detector is configured to detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint at the target surface so as to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint. As noted above, the deflected beam detector ([00213]) as disclosed is distinct in terms of function and arrangement within the optical system from the reflected beam detector(s) and therefore the disclosure does not provide support for a deflected beam detector as recited in claim 30 that is also configured to detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint (claim 19).
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
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) 23, 27-28, and 33-35 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 23 requires “the at least one detector configured to…detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint (claim 19), wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint.” Accordingly, claim 23 requires the at least one detector being configured “to detect the reflected energy beam” “to detect a distribution of a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint.” The configuration “to detect the reflected energy beam…to detect a distribution…of a power distribution” is unclear in view of the specification in terms of the intended structural requirement of the device/detector, particularly considering the lack of corresponding description.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the at least one second optical element focusing an entry to the optical fiber at the footprint during the printing" in lines 2-3. The limitation is confusing in view of the specification as to the particular structural arrangement it is intended to reflect. Regarding focusing of radiation onto an optical fiber, the specification describes in para. [00207], “Returning radiation can be focused onto the one or more fibers and transmitted to the one or more detectors. The indirect focus of the radiation onto the detector may be by focusing the radiation on a surface of a radiation entry end of the fiber.” Having the focusing being “at the footprint” via the second optical element is unclear, since “at the footprint” corresponds to “at the melt pool” or “at the target surface,” and the specification does not indicate that the optical element should be located at the melt pool or target surface. For further examination, the limitation is interpreted in line with the cited description.
Claim 33 recites “wherein the target surface is disposed in an enclosure during the printing of the at least one 3D object in the enclosure configured to enclosure the at least one 3D object during the printing” in lines 1-3. The limitation is grammatically confusing and unclear. For further examination, the limitation is interpreted to mean essentially that the target surface is disposed in an enclosure during the printing of the at least one 3D object and the enclosure is configured to enclose the at least one 3D object during the printing.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19-21, 29, and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Cheverton et al., US 20150048064 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Cheverton discloses a device for printing at least one three-dimensional object (direct metal laser melting system, Abstract; system 10, Fig. 1, [0021]), the device comprising:
(a) at least one first optical element (optics 16, Fig. 1, [0021]) configured to direct an energy beam (beam 22, Fig. 1, [0022]) from an energy beam source (from laser device 14, Fig. 1, [0022]) to impinge on a target surface (upper powder/object surface of component 48, Fig. 1, [0023]) to print the at least one 3D object (component 48, Fig. 1, [0023]), the target surface being supported by a substrate (powder bed 24, Fig. 1, [0022]) configured to support the at least one 3D object during the printing (Fig. 1), the energy beam impinging on the target surface having a footprint at the target surface (area where beam hits surface, melt pool area, [0042]), the energy beam impinging on the target surface being at least partially reflected from the footprint to generate a reflected energy beam (note that the limitation does not reflect a particular structural limitation of the apparatus; still, optical signal 42 is transmitted from the melt pool, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0027]), the at least one first optical element being configured to operatively couple with the energy source and to the substrate (operatively coupled in that they are connected by light beams, Fig. 1); and
(b) at least one second optical element (lens 30 and/or 36, Fig. 1, [0026]) configured to collect the reflected energy beam from the footprint during the printing (Fig. 1), the at least one second optical element being configured to operatively couple with the at least one first optical element and to the substrate (operatively coupled in that they are connected by light beams, Fig. 1); and
(c) at least one detector (sensor 26 and/or 32, Fig. 1, [0026]-[0027]) configured to, during the printing, detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint (Fig. 1, [0026]-[0028]) to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint (light sensors capable of monitoring and measuring size and temperature of the melt pool area, [0027]-[0028], [0042]), the at least one characteristic being of the energy beam and/or of the target surface (the melt pool area at the target surface, [0027]-[0028], [0042]), the at least one detector being configured to generate a result from the distribution detected (capable of monitoring and measuring size and temperature, [0027]-[0028], providing measured values, i.e., results, [0042]), the result being utilized for the printing (the limitation does not limit the claimed device; still, results can be used for generating correction factors, [0042]-[0043]), the at least one detector being configured to operatively couple with the at least one second optical element (operatively coupled in that they are connected by light beams, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the at least one characteristic is of the target surface (the melt pool area at the target surface, [0027]-[0028], [0042]).
Regarding claim 21, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a temperature along the footprint (temperature of the melt pool area, [0027]-[0028], [0042]).
Regarding claim 29, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the at least one second optical element is configured to direct to the at least one detector the reflected energy beam (Fig. 1, [0026]), the reflected energy beam being collimated when detected by one or more detectors of the at least one detector (being passed through pinhole apertures 28 and/or 34, Fig. 1, [0026]; in line with the present invention in [00217]).
Regarding claim 31, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the target surface comprises an exposed surface of a material bed disposed above the substrate during the printing (Fig. 1), the at least one 3D object being printed in the material bed (Fig. 1) and the material bed comprises at least one of the claimed materials (e.g., steel powder, [0024], a metal alloy).
Regarding claim 32, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19, wherein the target surface comprises an exposed surface of a material bed disposed above the substrate during the printing (Fig. 1), the at least one 3D object being printed in the material bed (Fig. 1).
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) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheverton et al., US 20150048064 A1, as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Ashton et al., US 20160236279 A1.
Regarding claim 22, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19. Cheverton is silent as to the at least one characteristic being of the energy beam.
The claim requires the at least one detector being configured to (capable to) detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic of the energy beam at the footprint.
Cheverton as set forth above for claim 19 discloses the at least one detector being configured to detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint. The further recitation of “to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint…the at least one characteristic being of the energy beam” does not clearly require any further particular structure of the detector in view of the present application.
Assuming arguendo that the recitation requires a further configuration of the device to use the detection of the reflected energy beam at the detector to thereby (in any manner) detect a distribution of a characteristic of the energy beam along the footprint, analogous art Ashton discloses an additive manufacturing device ([0001]) wherein an excess in energy density vaporizing a melt pool can be identified ([0023], i.e., a power distribution at a footprint of a target surface) from an intensity of spectral emissions ([0023]) observed via a detector arrangement ([0069]-[0070]). Ashton teaches that laser power can then be controlled/altered based on the detected light intensity ([0023], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the detector configuration as taught by Ashton such that the at least one characteristic was of the energy beam along the footprint so that a power level of the laser beam could be responsively controlled as a result of the detection of the at least one characteristic at the footprint, as taught by Ashton.
Regarding claim 23, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19. Cheverton is silent as to the at least one characteristic comprising a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint.
The claim requires the at least one detector being configured to (capable to) detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint, the at least one characteristic comprising a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint. Therefore, the claim seems to intend to require the at least one detector being configured to (capable to) detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint so as to detect a power distribution of the energy beam at the footprint.
Cheverton as set forth above discloses the at least one detector being configured to detect the reflected energy beam from the footprint. The further recitation of “to detect a distribution of at least one characteristic at the footprint…the at least one characteristic comprising a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint” does not clearly require any further particular structure of the detector in view of the present application.
Assuming arguendo that the recitation requires a further configuration of the device to use the detection of the reflected energy beam at the detector to thereby (in any manner) detect a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint, analogous art Ashton discloses an additive manufacturing device ([0001]) wherein an excess in energy density vaporizing a melt pool can be identified ([0023], i.e., a power distribution at a footprint of a target surface) from an intensity of spectral emissions ([0023]) observed via a detector arrangement ([0069]-[0070]). Ashton teaches that laser power can then be controlled/altered based on the detected light intensity ([0023], [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the detector configuration as taught by Ashton such that the at least one characteristic comprises a power distribution of the energy beam along the footprint so that a power level of the laser beam could be responsively controlled as a result of the detection of the at least one characteristic at the footprint, as taught by Ashton.
Claim(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheverton et al., US 20150048064 A1, as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Pettit et al., US 20160288254 A1.
Regarding claim 24, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19. Cheverton is silent as to the at least one first optical element being configured to alter a cross section of the energy beam from having a first cross section to having a second cross section, the energy beam having the second cross section impinging at the target surface.
In the analogous art, Pettit discloses systems for additive manufacturing (Abstract) having at least one first optical element (diffractive optical element (DOE), [0036], [0095]) being configured to alter a cross section of the energy beam from having a first cross section to having a second cross section (configured to condition the laser beam from a circular cross section to a spot with a predetermined shape, [0036], [0095]), the energy beam having the second cross section impinging at the target surface (the beam with the predetermined spot shape irradiates the surface, [0036]). Pettit teaches that inclusion of the DOE with other common optical/scanning components enables the configuring of a standard laser beam to an irradiating spot with a predetermined shape and flux distribution ([0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one first optical element to include a diffractive optical element such that it was configured to alter a cross section of the energy beam from having a first cross section to having a second cross section, the energy beam having the second cross section impinging at the target surface, in order to provide the capability of configuring a standard circular/Gaussian laser beam to an irradiating spot with a predetermined shape and flux distribution, as taught by Pettit.
Regarding claim 25, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 24. The combination as set forth above did not address a particular flux distribution.
Pettit further discloses the at least one first optical element is configured to alter the first cross section to the second cross section comprising a vertical power distribution having a reduced power at a center of the footprint as compared to an elevated power towards edges of the footprint (achievable flux distributions represented by dotted lines in Figs. 11A-11C, [0107]-[0114]). Pettit teaches that the DOE configuration enables different flux patterns for a wide range of applications ([0108], [0113]-[0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the at least one first optical element is configured to alter the first cross section to the second cross section comprising a vertical power distribution having a reduced power at a center of the footprint as compared to an elevated power towards edges of the footprint via the DOE configuration disclosed by Pettit in order to provide the capability of adjusting the flux pattern for different applications, as taught by Pettit.
Regarding claim 26, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 25, wherein the at least one first optical element comprises a lens configured to alter the first cross section to the second cross section (Pettit: DOE is an optical element that allows transmission/alteration of a light beam and thus comprises a lens, see DOE 38, Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheverton et al., US 20150048064 A1, in view of Pettit et al., US 20160288254 A1, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Yu et al., US 20110046916 A1.
Regarding claim 27, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 24. Cheverton is silent as to the at least one detector comprising an optical fiber, the at least one second optical element focusing an entry to the optical fiber at the footprint during the printing.
In the analogous art related to radiation detectors for deposition processes ([0002], [0018]), Yu discloses configuring at least one detector (sensor 150, Fig. 1, [0026]) to comprise an optical fiber (optic fiber bundle 120, Fig. 1, [0026]), wherein a corresponding at least one optical element (lens 110, Fig. 1, [0026]) focuses radiation from the working surface to the fiber at an entry end of the fiber (Fig. 1, [0026]). Yu teaches that optical fibers were used for transmitting radiation to a corresponding sensor ([0026]) for real-time monitoring of substrate conditions, such as temperature ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one detector of Cheverton to comprise an optical fiber, the at least one second optical element focusing an entry to the optical fiber at the footprint during the printing, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143(I)(B). Yu discloses the use of a fiber-connected radiation detector where a corresponding optical element focuses an entry of radiation to the optical fiber from a substrate surface during a deposition process and which enables real-time monitoring of substrate conditions, such as temperature.
Regarding claim 28, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 27, wherein the at least one detector is a single pixel detector (Cheverton: photodiode, [0027]; Yu also discloses a photodiode, [0018]).
Claim(s) 30 and 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheverton et al., US 20150048064 A1, as applied to claim 19 above, in view of Spears, US 20170242424 A1.
Regarding claim 30, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19. Cheverton does not disclose the at least one detector comprises a deflected beam detector configured to detect one or more characteristics of the energy beam before it impinges on the target surface.
In the analogous art, Spears discloses an additive manufacturing device (Fig. 1) including a deflected beam detector (sensor 58, Fig. 1, [0024], that receives beam S deflected from beam B, Fig. 1, [0026]) configured to detect one or more characteristics of the energy beam (for monitoring laser power, [0026], [0030]) before it impinges on the target surface (Fig. 1). Spears teaches that the laser power data obtained from the sensor can be used, for example, for machine qualification, calibration, to indicate a need for taking corrective action, and/or for real-time control to thereby reduce workpiece variation and improve part quality ([0031]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cheverton such that the at least one detector comprises a deflected beam detector configured to detect one or more characteristics of the energy beam before it impinges on the target surface in order to provide relevant operational data for the laser to improve workpiece quality and consistency, as taught by Spears.
Regarding claim 33, Cheverton discloses the device of claim 19. Cheverton is silent as to an enclosure.
In the analogous art, Spears, introduced above, further discloses the target surface is disposed in an enclosure (housing 28, Fig. 1, [0017]) during the printing of the at least one 3D object in the enclosure configured to [enclose] the at least one 3D object during the printing (Fig. 1), the enclosure being configured to [enclose] an internal atmosphere different by at least one characteristic from an ambient atmosphere external to the enclosure (e.g., excluding oxygen, [0017]). Spears discloses the housing serves to isolate and protect the components of the machine and to enable the application of a different gas environment ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cheverton to include an enclosure as claimed in order to ensure the isolation and protection of the device components and enable the application of a different gas environment during a build process, as taught by Spears.
Regarding claim 34, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 33, wherein the enclosure is configured to [enclose] the internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic comprising an internal pressure above an ambient pressure of the ambient atmosphere (Spears: the housing 28 isolating and enclosing the structure of the device, [0017], and therefore being capable of enclosing an atmosphere having a higher pressure relative to outside the device).
Regarding claim 35, modified Cheverton discloses the device of claim 33, wherein the enclosure is configured to [enclose] the internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic comprising oxygen or humidity at a reduced level relative to its respective level in the ambient atmosphere (Spears: e.g., excluding oxygen, [0017]), the at least one 3D object comprising an elemental metal or a metal alloy (Cheverton: being made from metal powder, [0020], steel, [0024]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160096236 A1, Cho et al. (Fig. 1); US 20090206065 A1, Kruth et al. (Fig. 2); US 20060081571 A1, Hoebel et al. (Figs. 2-3); US 20150004046 A1, Graham et al. (Fig. 1); US 20170090462 A1, Dave et al. (Fig. 6) disclose relevant laser processing systems with optical sensing arrangements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754