DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 04/10/2026, claims 9-17 and 19-22 are pending. Claims 9 and 15-17 are currently amended. Claims 1-8 and 18 are canceled, and claims 19-22 are newly added. Claims 9-17 and 19-22 are considered in this Office Action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 should be corrected to “a pressure holding time in a pressure holding step” (line 8)
Claim 14 should be corrected to “a back pressure” (line 8).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9-17 and 19-22 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the support target setting data includes at least one piece of setting data configuring a molding condition, wherein the at least one piece of setting data includes settings for at least two distinct steps of a molding operation” in lines 7-9. The limitation has been amended in part in the claim set filed on 04/29/2025 and 04/10/2026, thus, it is not a part of an original application. Instant Specification does not support that the at least one piece of setting data includes settings for at least two distinct steps of a molding operation. As disclosed, the support target setting data includes one piece or a plurality pieces of setting data configuring a molding condition, for example, a screw rotation speed set in a metering step, a pressure holding time in the pressure holding step, a back pressure in the metering step (Instant Specification: [0029, 0031, 0038, 0041], as published). Instant disclosure supports that the setting data could include settings for at least two distinct steps of a molding operation by choosing a plurality pieces of setting data. However, upon the most recent amendment in the claim, it does not support that the at least one piece (i.e., including a “single piece”) of target setting data (e.g., a screw rotation speed set in a metering step, a pressure holding time in the pressure holding step, a back pressure in the metering step, as presented above) includes “settings for at least two distinct steps of a molding operation.” Thus, the limitation “the at least one piece of setting data includes settings for at least two distinct steps of a molding operation” is not fully supported by Instant Specification.
Claims 10-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent from claim 9.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the at least one piece of setting data includes a duration of each step of the molding operation” in lines 1-2. Similar to the 112(a) rejection of claim 9, Instant Specification does not fully support that a “single” piece of setting data includes a duration of each step of the molding operation.
Claims 21 and 22 recite the limitation that the support target setting data includes a heater temperature. Instant Specification does not support that a heater temperature itself is a component of the support target setting data configuring a molding condition. Rather, it discloses that “the support target setting data is configured by … a target temperature of the heating cylinder 19 … in this case, the control target predicted amount of power become an amount of power consumption predicted for the heaters” (Instant Specification: [0044], as published). For the purpose of examination, the term “a heater temperature” would be interpreted as “a target temperature” or “a target temperature of a heating cylinder.”
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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 9-17 and 19-22 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 9 recites the limitation “the output operator support information further includes at least a current setting data value, a current control target predicted amount of power, a changed setting data value, and a changed control target predicted amount of power” in lines 17-19. There are insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 already recites the limitation “the operator support information including a set of support target setting data and control target predicted amount of power” in lines 4-6. It is unclear whether the italicized terms (i.e., a current and a changed setting data values) and the underlined terms (i.e., a current and a changed target predicted amounts of power) (1) are another new elements other than the support target setting data and the control target predicted amount of power (claim 1 lines 4-6), respectively (as literally meaning due to “further”), or (2) belong to the support target setting data and the control target predicted amount of power (claim 1 lines 4-6), respectively. Instant Specification does not seem to support the former case. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claims 10-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 9.
Claim 15 recites the limitations of “recommended setting data” (line 5) and “the control target predicted amount of power corresponding to the recommended setting data” (lines 6-7). There are insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9, from which claim 15 depends, recites the limitation “the output operator support information further includes at least a current setting data value, a current control target predicted amount of power, a changed setting data value, and a changed control target predicted amount of power” in lines 17-19. It is unclear whether the limitations of “recommended setting data” and “the control target predicted amount of power corresponding to the recommended setting data” are (1) the same as “a changed setting data value” and “a changed control target predicted amount of power” (claim 9 lines 17-19), respectively, or (2) another new elements. Instant Specification seems to support the former case as interchanging the term of “recommended” to “changed” (Instant Specification: [0045]; fig. 6), but not the latter case. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations of “recommended setting data” (line 5) and “the control target predicted amount of power corresponding to the recommended setting data” (lines 6-7). There are insufficient antecedent bases for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9, from which claim 15 depends, recites the limitation “the output operator support information further includes at least a current setting data value, a current control target predicted amount of power, a changed setting data value, and a changed control target predicted amount of power” in lines 17-19. It is unclear whether the limitations of “recommended setting data” and “the control target predicted amount of power corresponding to the recommended setting data” are (1) the same as “a changed setting data value” and “a changed control target predicted amount of power” (claim 9 lines 17-19), respectively, or (2) another new elements. Instant Specification seems to support the former case as interchanging the term of “recommended” to “changed” (Instant Specification: [0045]; fig. 6), but not the latter case. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rai (JP 2011230309 A).
Regarding claim 9, Rai teaches an operator support method for an injection molding machine ([0001]: a power consumption calculation device and a power consumption calculation method for injection molding machines; [0033, 0041]: user interface support program to understand power consumption ), the injection molding machine comprising a control device (fig. 1; [0014-0023, 0025]: controller 26 including a power consumption calculation unit 261), the operator support method comprising:
causing the control device to output at least one set of operator support information, the operator support information including a set of support target setting data and control target predicted amount of power (figs. 1-5; [0023-0028, 0037-0046]: the power consumption calculation unit 261 uses the molding conditions input via the user interface 35 as input parameters and predict the power consumption generated by the operation of the injection molding machine 1),
wherein the support target setting data includes at least one piece of setting data configuring a molding condition, wherein the at least one piece of the setting data includes settings for at least two distinct steps of a molding operation (figs. 2-5; [0028]: the molding condition parameter (input parameter) such as cycle time, mold opening/closing time, metering time, mold clamping time, mold clamping force, mold opening/closing stroke, mold opening/closing speed, filling amount, injection speed, rotation speed of screw 20 during metering, holding pressure, and holding pressure time; [0030, 0038]: the user inputs the molding condition parameters and/or a range that can be changed for molding condition parameters), and
wherein the control target predicted amount of power is a predicted amount of power consumption of a control target for at least one step of the at least two distinct steps of the molding operation, controlled in association with the support target setting data with respect to a change in the support target setting data (figs. 2-5; [0033]: the power consumption calculation result is output, and user may reconsider and re-enter the molding conditions and understand what the power consumption will be under the new molding conditions so as to adjust the molding conditions in advance in consideration of power consumption; [0040-0041]: output the power consumption which is optimized to minimize with optimal molding conditions),
wherein the output operator support information further includes at least a current setting data value, a current control target predicted amount of power, a changed setting data value, and a changed control target predicted amount of power (figs. 2-5; [0030-0033]: the user inputs molding condition parameters (i.e., a current setting data value), and calculation results of the power consumption (i.e., a current control target predicted amount of power) for each molding process may be displayed, and user, after review the calculation results, reconsider and re-enter the molding conditions and understand what the power consumption (i.e., a changed control target predicted amount of power) will be under the new molding conditions (i.e., a changed setting data value) so that adjust the molding conditions in advance in consideration of power consumption; of note, here, although Rai does not explicitly disclose that the output support information (e.g. displayed information) include all the four underlined terms, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the output support information to include at least all four of the underlined terms in order to allow a user to compare the current values to the changed values directly, quickly, side-by-side, or with an instant visual representation; [0038-0041]: constraints are entered by the user, and calculation results of the optimal molding conditions and the corresponding power consumption when the molding is performed under those optimal conditions; in addition, it would have been also obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to combine two exemplary processing flows as disclosed in figs. 3 and 5 of Rai to derive the output support information with the following four terms - molding condition parameters (i.e., a current setting data value) and calculation results of the power consumption (i.e., a current control target predicted amount of power) obtained from the processing of fig. 3, and optimal molding conditions (i.e., a changed setting data value), and the corresponding power consumption under the optimal conditions (i.e., a changed control target predicted amount of power) obtained from the processing of fig. 5 in order to obtain an optimized setting under consideration of various constraints even faster and more accurate, and handling complex data with reduced human error).
Regarding claim 10, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 9, wherein the injection molding machine comprises a plurality of servo motors (fig. 1; [0014, 0018]), and wherein the operator support method comprises causing the control device to output the at least one set of the operator support information, in which the control target is one of the plurality of servo motors controlled in association with the support target setting data, and the control target predicted amount of power is power consumption predicted for the one of the plurality of servo motors ([0028, 0045]: calculate predicted power consumption using a formula for each motor – e.g., servo motor 42 during mold opening and closing process, servo motor 11 during the injection process or pressure holding process, servo motor 24 during metering process).
Regarding claim 11, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 9, wherein the injection molding machine comprises a heater (fig. 1; [0003]), and wherein the operator support method comprises causing the control device to output the at least one set of the operator support information, in which the control target is the heater, and the control target predicted amount of power is power consumption predicted for the heater (figs. 2-5; [0003, 0028, 0045]: calculate predicted power consumption using a formula for each heater or a particular combination of heaters installed around a heating cylinder to melt the resin – e.g., heater power during metering process).
Regarding claim 12, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 10, wherein the injection molding machine comprises a heating cylinder and a screw disposed in the heating cylinder (fig. 1; [0014]: the screw 20 is rotatably and axially movable within the heating cylinder 21), wherein the plurality of servo motors includes a plasticizing servo motor configured to rotate the screw, and wherein the operator support method comprises causing the control device to output the at least one set of the operator support information, in which the support target setting data includes a screw rotation speed in a metering step, and the control target includes the plasticizing servo motor (figs. 2-5; [0020, 0028, 0045]: calculate predicted power consumption using a formula for each motor – e.g., servo motor 24 during plasticization/ metering process in consideration of rotation speed of screw 20).
Regarding claim 13, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 10, wherein the injection molding machine comprises a heating cylinder and a screw disposed in the heating cylinder (fig. 1; [0014]: the screw 20 is rotatably and axially movable within the heating cylinder 21), wherein the plurality of servo motors includes an injection servo motor configured to drive the screw in an axial direction (fig. 1; [0014, 0020]: injection servo motor 11, and the controller 26 controls the rotation speed of the servo motor 11 to perform the injection process and the holding pressure process), and wherein the operator support method comprises causing the control device to output the at least one set of the operator support information, in which the support target setting data is a pressure holding time includes a pressure holding step, and the control target includes the injection servo motor ([0020, 0028, 0045]: calculate predicted power consumption using a formula for each motor – e.g., servo motor 11 during the pressure holding process in consideration of holding pressure time).
Regarding claim 15, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 12, wherein in the causing of the control device to output the at least one set of the operator support information, the operator support method comprises causing the control device to: display on a monitor of the injection molding machine recommended setting data for the screw rotation speed; and display, on the monitor of the injection molding machine, the control target predicted amount of power corresponding to the recommended setting data (figs. 4-5; [0038-0041]: constraints are entered by the user, and calculation results of the optimal molding conditions and the corresponding power consumption when the molding is performed under those optimal conditions are displayed; [0028, 0045]: calculate power consumption for each motor, including servo motor 24 during plasticization/ metering process in consideration of rotation speed of screw 20; fig. 1 and [0021]: the user interface 35 includes an input unit for receiving various instructions from the user, as well as an output unit (for example, a display unit) for outputting various information to the user).
Regarding claim 16, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 13, wherein in the causing of the control device to output the at least one set of the operator support information, the operator support method comprises causing the control device to: display on a monitor of the injection molding machine recommended setting data for the pressure holding time; and display, on the monitor of the injection molding machine, the control target predicted amount of power corresponding to the recommended setting data (figs. 4-5; [0038-0041]: constraints are entered by the user, and calculation results of the optimal molding conditions and the corresponding power consumption when the molding is performed under those optimal conditions are displayed; [0028, 0045]: calculate power consumption for each motor, including servo motor 11 during the injection process or pressure holding process in consideration of holding pressure time; fig. 1 and [0021]: the user interface 35 includes an input unit for receiving various instructions from the user, as well as an output unit (for example, a display unit) for outputting various information to the user).
Regarding claim 17, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 9, wherein the at least one piece of setting data includes a duration of each step of the molding operation ([0028]).
Regarding claim 19, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 9, wherein based on the operator support information, an operator configures the injection molding machine ([0021, 0033, 0041]).
Regarding claim 20, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 9, wherein the support target setting data includes a screw rotation speed in a metering step, and the control target includes a plasticizing servo motor (figs. 2-5; [0020, 0028, 0045]: calculate predicted power consumption using a formula for each motor – e.g., servo motor 24 during plasticization/metering process in consideration of rotation speed of screw 20).
Claims 14, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rai (JP 2011230309 A) in view of Ito (US 6,526,360 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 10, wherein the injection molding machine comprises a heating cylinder and a screw disposed in the heating cylinder (fig. 1; [0014]: the screw 20 is rotatably and axially movable within the heating cylinder 21), wherein the plurality of servo motors includes an injection servo motor configured to drive the screw in an axial direction (fig. 1; [0014, 0020]: injection servo motor 11, and the controller 26 controls the rotation speed of the servo motor 11 to perform the injection process and the holding pressure process), and wherein the operator support method comprises causing the control device to output the at least one set of the operator support information [0020, 0028, 0045]: calculate predicted power consumption using a formula for each motor), but does not specifically teach that the support target setting data includes back pressure in a plasticizing step, and the control target includes the injection servo motor ([0020, 0028, 0045]: calculate predicted power consumption using a formula for each motor – e.g., servo motor 11 during the pressure holding process in consideration of holding pressure).
Ito teaches a display device displaying power consumption of an injection molding machine, which can display power consumption of each power consuming element of the machine and power consumption per cycle of manufacture of products (abstract, fig. 1). Ito teaches that the CPU 17 for pressure monitor is to sample injection holding pressure and screw back pressure through a pressure detector 40 (col. 4 lines 39-42), the screw 38 is moved in an axial direction by a drive and an injection servo motor M1 (col. 3 lines 47-49), a power consumption is concurrently monitored for each servo motor (col. 9 lines 35-54).
In the same field of endeavor of injection molding, both Rai and Ito teach a method of effectively utilizing power during the injection molding process by monitoring and/or predicting powers consumed in electric components of the injection molding apparatus (Rai: [0007-0010]; Ito: abstract, fig. 1). Rai further discloses that in the plasticization/metering process, the screw 20 rotates and retracts inside the heating cylinder 21, causing molten resin to accumulate at the front of the screw 20 ([0015]), and it is possible to calculate power consumption for each servo motors including an injection servo motor 11 ([0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the injection molding machine/processing of Rai to further monitor the back pressure while the heated cylinder retreats and concurrently monitor the corresponding power consumption of the injection servo motor as taught by Ito in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of estimating the additional power consumption attributable to back pressure acting on the injection servo motor during the plasticization/metering so as to predict the total energy consumption of the injection molding process more accurately and thereby to allow improved optimization of process parameters in consideration of energy usage.
Regarding claim 21 and 22, Rai teaches the operator support method according to claim 9, wherein the support target setting data includes [a heater temperature], and the control target is a heater (figs. 2-5; [0003, 0028, 0045]: calculate predicted power consumption using a formula for each heater or a particular combination of heaters installed around a heating cylinder to melt the resin – e.g., heater power during metering process), wherein the support target setting data includes a screw rotation speed in a metering step and [a heater temperature], and the control target includes a plasticizing servo motor and a heater (figs. 2-5; [0020, 0028, 0045]: calculate predicted power consumption using a formula for each component of injection molding machine – e.g., servo motor 24 during plasticization/metering process in consideration of rotation speed of screw 20 and heater power during metering/plasticization process), but does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above.
Ito teaches a display device displaying power consumption of an injection molding machine, which can display power consumption of each power consuming element of the machine and power consumption per cycle of manufacture of products (abstract, fig. 1). Ito teaches that the injection cylinder 39 is mounted with a band heater 34 and a thermocouple 37 serving as a temperature detecting means, and a plurality of sets of band heaters 34 and thermocouples 37 are provided in a longitudinal direction so, for control temperature of parts of the injection cylinder 39 individually (fig. 1; col. 3 lines 26-31).
In the same field of endeavor of injection molding, both Rai and Ito teach a method of effectively utilizing power during the injection molding process by monitoring and/or predicting powers consumed in electric components of the injection molding apparatus (Rai: [0007-0010]; Ito: abstract, fig. 1). Rai further discloses that predicted power consumption is calculated using a formula for each heater or a particular combination of heaters installed around a heating cylinder to melt the resin ([0003, 0028, 0045]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the injection molding machine/processing of Rai to further monitor the temperature of the heated cylinder or the heaters as taught by Ito in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of deriving an approximation formula estimating the power consumption of the heater(s) attributable to the temperature of the heated cylinder or the heaters so as to predict the total energy consumption of the injection molding process in consideration of a critical injection molding parameter of the resin temperature that would ensure material integrity and quality of a molded article.
Response to Arguments
RE: The 103 rejection of claim 9
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9 (which have been newly amended by the applicants) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection have been made due to the newly added features from the applicant’s latest amendment.
The basis of the applicant’s argument is based upon the changes regarding the limitation “the output operator support information further includes at least a current setting data value, a current control target predicted amount of power, a changed setting data value, and a changed control target predicted amount of power.” After further search and reconsideration, the Rai reference is applied to the rejection as a primary reference. Thus, Rai does teach/suggest all the claimed limitations without the previously cited prior art.
Thereby, after reconsideration, claim 9 remains rejected.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ito (US 5792395 A) teaches a plasticization control method for an injection molding machine, including a variable screw rotation speed (abstract, fig. 4).
Konno (US 20060017416 A1) teaches an injection molding machine comprising a control device which controls an input to an incorporated motor (abstract).
Jones (US 4904913 A) teaches a motor control system for an injection molding machine to reduce the amount of electrical power required by the machine during its cycle period (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached on (571)270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights