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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
The amendment filed April 30, 2026 has been received and entered. With the entry of the amendment, claims 3-5 and 9-12 are canceled, and claims 1-2, 6-8 and new claims 13-15 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
It is noted that non-elected claims 9-11 have been canceled by the amendment of January 24, 2025.
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: “spraying device” in claim 6.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends is withdrawn due to the cancellation of claim 12 in the amendment of April 30, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess et al (US 6024792) in view of Freeman (US 5273708), CN 101480756 (hereinafter ‘756), Kurz et al (US 2007/0281104), Keicher et al (US 6391251) and Oehring et al (US 2006/0138200).
Claim 1: Burgess indicates the desire to manufacture a turbomachine (turbine engine part) disc, where it is known to be desirable to form rotor disc/disks with a plurality of rotor blades extending therefore, where such discs can be formed in a rotor “blisk” form with the blades formed integrally with the rotor disc, to reduce centrifugal stresses (note 0001-0002), where the manufacture includes providing a blank and machining the blisk from the blank with the forming of the blades (note 0004), where it is described to provide a blank disc in a circular part form with a bore/center of hub 14 (which can be considered a “rough” bore) forming a circular cross section central zone of the disc, installing the bore about an axis of rotation (shaft 16 can be considered such an installation) (note figure 1, 0014) , and rotating the bore about the axis for rotation, and machining the outer surface part of the disc to obtain blades on the outer surface of the disc (note figure 1, 0016, 0022, where the indexing would involve rotation from the pattern shown in figure 1) and obtain a turbomachine part (note 0025-0026).
(A) Burgess does not specifically provide that the disc is formed as a dual material disc, with a second material applied to a first material of the bore to form a uniform layer on the circumferential external surface of the bore to give a dual layer circular part that is to be machined, where the second material is sprayed under solidification conditions generating a columnar or single crystal microstructure onto the circumferential external surface of the rough bore, and where the second material has a creep resistance greater than the first material.
However, Freeman teaches that when providing blisks/rotor with a center hub and outer blades, it is desirable to provide a dual property article with different microstructures/materials at different location, such as providing a blisk with a fine grained hub and a directionally solidified (DS, columnar grain) or single crystal (single grain) blade structure (note column 5,lines 50-65), where if the blisk/bladed rotor has a single structure, this has problems such as inferior stress rupture at the rim, and reduced creep properties (note column 2, lines 25-50), where it would be desirable to have the center disc have one set of properties and the outer blades with single crystal or columnar structure (note column 2,lines 30-68), where by providing the blades/airfoils with DS or single crystal, they have enhanced mechanical properties including creep resistance (note column 6,lines 50-65), and the center hub 11 has mechanical properties appropriate for the hub (note column 12, lines 25-40).
‘756 describes how a disk blank for forming a turbine disk with blades can be provided by a laser fusion/welding/cladding/spraying system where a first alloy powder A is applied using the laser to a mandrel and forms the needed core blank size, then a second alloy powder B is formed on the edge of the blank to be coated by the laser process to be build up to the desired blank size (note the abstract, translation, pages 2-3), where it is indicated to form a turbine disk cylindrical portion blank and have a thickness of 0.5-1.0 mm (note translation, page 3), and there is a sweep speed, indicating the relative movement between the disk and laser device for coating (note translation, page 3).
Kurz further describes how blades for gas turbines, for example, can be desired to be built up with a monocrystalline structure (single crystal) (note column 2, lines 1-25), where the material can be applied to a substrate that is the same or different than that used for the substrate (note column 2, lines 20-35). The process for applying the material includes using a laser, where material to be applied is sprayed/blown in powder form into the substrate area that is further heated with a laser, for example, (forming a molten puddle) and where the material is completely melted and then solidifies to a monocrystalline structure, so sprayed under solidification conditions to generate a single crystal microstructure (note figure 4, column 5, lines 45-68), where when the material sprayed is different from the substrate a dual layer structure would be formed, and where the as shown in figure 4, a uniform layer is formed. The spraying conditions would be such that there is relative movement between the substrate and powder spray nozzle, and application to an external surface (note figure 4). Kurz describes using a nickel based super alloy material (note column 3, lines 50-55, column 4, lines 55-65), where the material can be built up on other super alloy materials as well (note column 5, lines 40-45). Kurz describes that the spray material can be in the form of a single crystal alloy (monocrystalline) (column 4, lines 35-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess to specifically provide that the blisk is provided in the form of a dual material disk, with a center part of a first material that has desirable hub mechanical features and the outer part where the blades machined has a second material that has features such as good creep resistance, which would be suggested to have a creep resistance greater than the first material since it is the second material that is desired to have the properties of creep resistance, and single crystal microstructure as suggested by Freeman and ‘756 to provide a desirable disc structure, since Burgess teaches providing a desirable blisk structure with machined blades formed from a disc blank, and Freeman indicates that for similar blisks it is desirable to have the blisk provided in the form of a dual property/material disk, with a center part of a first material that has desirable hub mechanical features and the outer part where the blades formed has a second material that has features such as good creep resistance and in the form of a columnar (DS) or single crystal microstructure, giving desirable different structural/mechanical features in desirable locations of the blisk, and ‘756 also notes disc blanks can be provided with a first center material and second outer material. Furthermore, as to providing the layer structure with the disk rotated about the axis of rotation and spraying a second material under solidification conditions generating a columnar or single crystal microstructure onto the circumferential external surface of the rough bore to form a uniform layer on the circumferential external surface of the rough bore giving a dual material circular part, it would further be suggested to provide such features by modifying Burgess in view of Freeman and ‘756 by applying the second material to the core of first material that is rotating about an axis of rotation by a laser cladding method as suggested further by ‘756 and Kurz, since Burgess indicates how treatment can be provided to a disc blank by rotating about an axis of rotation, and ‘756 indicates how dual material disc blanks can be provided by laser cladding a second material in a controlled thickness onto a core area (which would be where the bore is as indicated by Burgess for the center core of the blank, and have a circumferential external surface on which the coating second material applied) where it would be suggested that this clad thickness is unform since as shown by Burgess the same thickness, etc, used for each blade around the blank (note figure 1), and give a resulting circular part for machining, and further as to the laser application features, ‘756 indicates that there would be relative movement between the laser and disc for application, where Burgess shows rotation for relative movement, and Kurz further describes a desirable laser application that applies alloy and builds up a single crystal structure for blades for example, where the application includes spraying the material under solidification conditions generating a single crystal structure using a laser onto an external surface that can have relative movement between applicator nozzle and the substrate, so by rotating as described Burgess, second material can be applied to the external surface of the bore as described by Kurz, where the laser application will give the desired laser application and microstructure desired, where Kurz further indicate that the second material to be applied can be provided in the form of a single crystal powder material to be laser sprayed
(B) Further as to heating the rough bore with a heating plate mounted inside the rough bore, spraying the second material under solidification conditions, while the rough bore is heated, as discussed above it is suggested to spray the second material under solidification conditions on the rough bore. The heating would be suggested by at least ‘756 and Kurz. ‘756 indicates how when using a laser process to apply alloy powder, it is conventional to have the alloy powder melted with the laser at the substrate surface and fusing with rapid solidification (note page 2, translation). Kurz further describes providing a similar process (note figure 4, column 5, lines 45-68), where Kurz further describes that it is desirable for the substrate to be preheated and maintained at the preheat temperature during the build up, this reduces stresses in the substrate and built up area (coating), which contributes to the prevention of creep (note column 3, lines 10-20).
Keicher further describes conventional laser spraying onto a substrate, where a laser is applied to a substrate surface forming a molten puddle and metal powder is injected into the puddle, where the substrate is moved relative to the laser beam in a controlled fashion to deposit thin metallic lines to build up a desired layer (note column 11, lines 45-60, figure 1), and further describes using a similar systemin the invention of Keicher (note figures 6, 7), where there is further additional heat provided to the substrate (note column 15, line 40 to column 16, line 20), where it is indicated that it is desirable to provide the additional heating during processing to prevent distortion of the substrate (note column 15, line 15 to column 16, line 20). It is indicated that the heat can be provided using a plate (platen 81) applied to the back side of the substate/opposite side to the laser applicator (note figure 7, lines 50-60).
Therefore, 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 process of Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756 and Kurz to provide heating the substrate with a heating plate mounted inside the rough bore and spraying the second material while heating the bore/substrate with the heating plate as suggested by Keicher with an expectation of providing a desirable heating during application, since Kurz indicates how it is desirable to heat the substrate before and during application of the second material in the laser process to help relax stress and reduce creep, and Keicher describes how in similar laser application processes, heating of the substrate can be provided by applying a heating plate to the back side of the substrate, where when coating a rough bore as desired by Burgess, the inside of the bore would act as the back side of the substrate, and so the heating plate would be suggested to be applied to the insider of the rough bore, and it would be further suggested that the application be by a mounting so as a retain the plate in position on the inside of the bore.
(C) As to specifically machining vanes in the part so that the vanes are made of the second material (claims 1, 12), as discussed above, it is suggested that blades can be machined so that the blades are made of the second material.
Oehring further indicates that blisks can be provided with blades or vanes (note 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Kurz and Keicher to provide that vanes are machined in the part instead of blades as suggested by Oehring with an expectation of predictably acceptable results, since Burgess describes machining blades in the blisk blank, but Oehring indicates that that blisks can be formed with either blades or vanes.
(D) As to the spraying operation comprises laser spraying the single crystal material by making at least one hole in the external surface of the rough bore, inserting a seed of single crystal material and melting the seed, this would be suggested in the process of Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Kurz, Keicher and Oehring, since Kurz indices to provide the laser spraying application by using the laser with a beam diameter to melt the substrate in a spot forming a liquid puddle of melted surface layer (so a hole, to the extent claimed, formed in the surface by melting), then spray in powder with a monocrystalline structure (so a seed of single crystal material) and melting the powder (seed) (note figure 4, lines 55-65, column 4, line 35-45 and 60-65, column 5, lines 40-68), where it is indicated that the substrate has a single crystal structure oriented in a direction, and the built up material will also have that (note column 4, lines 25-50, figure 2). Since the applied material can be in the form of single crystal powder and can be of the same material as the substrate (note column 4, lines 55-65), it is therefore at least predictable and acceptable that the second material powder of single crystal material would also have an orientation in a desired direction as shown for the substrate.
Claim 2: from the teaching of Kurz, the second material would be predictably an acceptably a nickel based single crystal material in powder form (as can be nickel based material in powder form and also in single crystal form) (note column 3, lines 50-55, and column 4, lines 35-45 and 60-68).
Claim 6: as to the second material sprayed by a spraying device, Kurz indicates using a spraying device understood to meet the requirements under 35 USC 112(f), noting the laser with nozzle 45 to spray in the desired orientation (figure 4). As to the material sprayed along a direction perpendicular to a tangent of the external surface of the rough bore, Kurz shows how material can be applied to the surface for a direction perpendicular the surface of the substrate (with the laser device providing the direction) (figure 4) and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide that when spraying as with Kurz, the same direction would allow such direction perpendicular to a tangent of the external surface of the rough bore application, with an expectation of predictably acceptable coating. Furthermore, Keicher would also show how powder in such a system can also be sprayed perpendicular to the surface (note figures 42-45, column 28,m lines 25-65).
Claim 7: As to there being junction between the rough bore and the second material located in an intermediate zone between a central zone of the disc and a rim of the disc, it is understood that such would be suggested by ‘756 and Freeman, where from Freeman the blades would be suggested to be of the second material, so the switchover to the second material would be suggested to occur before the blade area to be formed so the entire blade can be the desired second material, giving a junction as claimed, as well, ‘756 indicates that there can also be a functionally gradient material structure (note translation, page 3), further suggesting a junction/intermediate zone of changeover.
Claim 13, 14: a to the heating providing temperature gradient extending from a center of the rough bore toward the circumferential external surface (claims 13, 14), and grains or crystals of the second material in the layer formed on the surface are oriented along a direction of the temperature gradient, this would be at least suggested by Kurz and Keicher as giving predictably and acceptable results, since Kurz wants to heat the surface to be coated, and Keicher indicates using the plates that would be in the bore, it would be suggested that there would be at least some gradient as heat supplied from the back has to pass through the substrate to the external surface, which would be expected to therefore result in some gradient or cooling, and Kurz shows how grains/crystals can be oriented in an upward fashion including the new crystals (note figure 2), and thus is would be predictable and acceptable to provide the crystals in the second material of the layer are oriented in the upward/outward direction of the temperature gradient.
Claim 15: as to the radial direction of the grains/crystals of the second material in the layer formed on the external surface being oriented in a radial direction of the disc, this would be at least suggested by Kurz as giving predictably and acceptable results, since Kurz shows how grains/crystals can be oriented in an upward fashion including the new crystals (note figure 2), and thus is would be predictable and acceptable to provide the crystals in the second material of the layer are oriented in the upward/outward direction of the external surface, which for the circular external surface of the bore would give the material oriented along a radial direction of the disc.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Kurz, Keicher and Oehring as applied to claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 13-15 above, and further in view of Derrien (US 2012/0276304).
Claim 8: as to performing hot isostatic compression treatment after the machining,
Derrien describes that a well known heat treatment after a laser application treatment of turbine parts, such as blades, which helps remove undesired pores, is hot isostatic pressing (compression) (note 0001, 0010-0011, 0027, 0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Kurz, Keicher and Oehring to provide hot isostatic pressing after the machining as the heat treatment to help remove any undesired pores as suggested by Derrien, since Burgess in view of Freeman, ‘756, Kurz, Keicher and Oehring is providing a laser application to a blade layer of material, and Derrien teaches that a well known heat treatment after laser application to turbine blades would be hot isostatic pressing to remove pores in the applied material, and heat treatment after this can occur after the machining or before the machining as it is not limited, and as to the use of vanes, Oehring shows the conventional use of either blades or vanes.
Erikson et al (US 2009/0283501) notes preheating before laser application (0001, 0006).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 30, 2026 have been fully considered.
The rejections above have been adjusted due to the amendments to the claims, noting the removal of various references and the addition of Kurz and Keicher.
As to the 35 USC 103 rejections, as to the arguments regarding heating of the rough bore, with the plate mounted in the bore, the Examiner notes the adjustment of the rejections as to this newly added feature, where Gorubesville, ‘895, and ‘465 are removed and Kurz and Keicher have been added, where Kurz suggests preheating and heating the substrate during the material application, and Kiecher indicates how for such laser application processes, it is known to provide heating using a plate applied to the back surface opposed to the laser applicator, which here would be the inside of the rough bore.
As to the arguments regarding providing the hole, with Kurz as now added for the heating features, it as well would indicate the providing of the hole and single crystal, including with suggested orientation. It is argued that a laser melted pool (as in Singh, where Kurz also provides the hole by laser melting) would not provide the pre-formed hole or seeds, where they do not have orientation or function as a template, however, the Examiner is of the position that as discussed in the rejection, a hole in the surface would be formed by a laser (as claimed there is no requirement as to the hole being pre-formed in any fashion), and the powder would be single crystal and suggested to have an orientation. The disclosure as filed refers to putting seeds with such conditions in a hole and being remelted (where Kurz would also melt the particles), where it is not specifically required that the seeds have any other actual action, and as well, the resulting applied material forms the crystal growth an a directed orientation in Kurz (figure 2), so the material does act as a “seed” that gives further crystal growth of a desired orientation, to the extent actually claimed.
As to the arguments as to the features of Gourbesville, this reference has been removed.
As to the arguments as to the features of Freeman, Freeman is not being modified. The primary reference being modified is Burgess. Freeman describes known desire features of a product blisk/rotor.
As to the arguments as to the use of impermissible hindsight, it is the Examiner’s position that the presently cited references would suggest the features claimed as provided in detail in the rejection. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, the rejections above are maintained.
New claims 13-15 are rejected as discussed above.
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 KATHERINE A BAREFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-1413. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am -3:30 pm, 2nd F 6:00 am -2:30 pm.
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, GORDON BALDWIN can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/KATHERINE A BAREFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights