DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s response filed 31 December 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 20, 26, 27, 30-33, 39, and 40 have been amended, and claims 20-40 remain pending.
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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 December 2025 has been entered.
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 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.
Claims 20, 25, 26, 28-33, 38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaji et al. (EP 0101521 A1; hereinafter “Yaji”; listed in the IDS filed 12 January 2024), in view of Tian et al. (CN104209480 A; using US PGPub 2017/0304889 for the English translation and citations; hereinafter “Tian”), and Takahashi et al. (US 5,242,014; hereinafter “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 20, Yaji teaches a flux feeding apparatus (see Fig. 13), the apparatus comprising:
a plurality of silos (hoppers 72a through 72c, see Fig. 13; 22:27-31) each containing a different flux or flux component (see 22:27-33);
a receiver (transducer 52, see Fig. 13; 21:29-22:12) for receiving process parameters of the casting process (see 21:29-22:12) wherein the process parameters include a heat transfer rate (heat flux meters 14, see Fig. 13; 21:29-22:5); and
a controller (operational processing unit 56, see Fig. 13; 21:38-22:12) which is configured to:
analyze the process parameter received by the receiver (see 21:29-22:38, 23:6-22, and 23:26-25:13),
determine whether a current flux composition is appropriate for the received process parameter (23:6-22); and
if the current flux composition is not appropriate for the received process parameter, change the delivery of flux or flux components from the plurality of silos to provide a required flux composition to the mold for the received process parameter (see 21:29-22:38, 23:6-22, and 23:26-25:13).
Yaji is silent to a receiver for receiving process parameters of the casting process, the process parameters including any combination of a thickness of a layer of flux on molten metal in the mold, a flux consumption rate, or a heat transfer rate; and
a controller which is configured to:
analyse two or more of the process parameters received by the receiver;
determine whether a current flux consumption is appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters; and
if the current flux consumption is not appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters, change the delivery of flux or flux components from the plurality of silos to provide a required flux composition to the mold for the analysed two or more process parameters.
Takahashi teaches a receiver for receiving process parameters of the casting process (controller 23, see 22:3-23:34) and
a controller (controller 23, see 22:3-23:34) which is configured to:
analyse two or more of the process parameters received by the receiver (see 22:3-23:34);
determine whether a current flux consumption is appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters (see 22:3-23:34); and
if the current flux consumption is not appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters, change the delivery of flux or flux components from the silo to provide a required flux composition to the mold for the analysed two or more process parameters (see 22:3-23:34). This allows for the controller to directly issue a control signal to the casting speed controller 18, the blown gas flow rate controller 16, the melt flow rate controller 14, and/or the powder supply unit 30 for automatic control to eliminate the abnormality (see 22:3-23:34).
In view of Takahashi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus Yaji to include a receiver for receiving process parameters of the casting process and a controller which is configured to:
analyse two or more of the process parameters received by the receiver
determine whether a current flux consumption is appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters; and
if the current flux consumption is not appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters, change the delivery of flux or flux components from the plurality of silos to provide a required flux composition to the mold for the analysed two or more process parameters,
as taught by Takahashi, because it allows for the controller to directly issue a control signal to eliminate the abnormality (see 22:3-23:34).
The combination of Yaji and Takahashi teaches a heat transfer rate (Yaji: (heat flux meters 14, see Fig. 13; 21:29-22:5), but is silent to the process parameters including any combination of a thickness of a layer of flux on molten metal in the mold, a flux consumption rate, or a heat transfer rate.
Tian teaches a method and system for a slag thickness detection and a slag-adding prediction (see [0002]). Tian teaches a laser thickness meter to calculate the real-time slag thickness corresponding to the measurement points and constructs a three-dimensional real-time dynamic model of the protective slag layer with a three-dimensional reconstruction algorithm based on two-dimensional coordinates and the slag thickness values corresponding to the measurement points (see [0072]). This allows for predicting a location on the surface of the protective slag layer where a slag-adding is to be performed and a slag-adding time when the slag-adding is to be performed (see [0072]). This helps to ensure uniform slag-adding and further improving the quality of the cast billet (see [0078]).
In view of Tian’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of the combination of Yaji and Takahashi to include wherein the process parameters include a thickness of a layer of flux on molten metal in the mold, as taught by Tian, because it allows for real-time calculation of slag thickness and allows for predicting a location on the surface of the protective slag layer where a slag-adding is to be performed and a slag-adding time when the slag-adding is to be performed. This helps to ensure uniform slag-adding and further improving the quality of the cast billet.
Regarding the functional language (e.g., for delivering flux to a mold during a continuous casting process, for receiving two or more process parameters of the casting process), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon (e.g., a different flux or flux component), as per MPEP §2115.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian teaches wherein the thickness of the layer of flux on the molten metal is determined using a laser distance measurement device (Tian: see [0071]).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian teaches wherein the process parameters are sensed (Yaji: heat flux meters 14, see Fig. 13; 21:29-22:5; Tian: a laser thickness meter to calculate the real-time slag thickness, see [0072] and [0078]).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., wherein the process parameters are inputted by a user or sensed), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian teaches wherein the controller selects a plurality of the silos so as to form a mixture of the individual fluxes or flux components (Yaji: see 24:37-25:13).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., wherein the controller selects a plurality of the silos so as to form a mixture of the individual fluxes or flux components), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian is silent to wherein the controller selects one of the silos so as to deliver the flux contained therein to the mold. However, as Yaji teaches that it is known to select all the silos to deliver the flux contained therein to the mold when the mixture comes from different silos (Yaji: see 24:37-25:13), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that, for example, if the mixture only needed to have one element added to reach the desired powder mixture, then the single corresponding hopper would be selected to discharge while the other hoppers would not be selected to discharge their respective powders.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian teaches wherein, the controller is further configured to generate an alert for an operator when the current flux composition is not appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters (Yaji: see 21:29-22:38, 23:6-22, and 23:26-25:13 – an operational processing unit 56 for judging an abnormality of a heat flux waveform and emitting an alarm command to an alarming device 58 to inform an operator of the abnormality when the wave crest H and/or the amplitude W, both of which are emitted from the transducer 52, is gone out of the predetermined range, and so this indicates that the current flux composition is not appropriate for the received process parameters; also see Takahashi: 22:3-23:34).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian teaches wherein the controller is further configured to allow the operator to instruct the controller in response to the alert to change the delivery of flux or flux components from the plurality of silos to provide the required flux composition to the mold for the received process parameters (Yaji: see 20:20-22:38, 23:6-22, and 23:26-25:13 – Yaji teaches, in a different embodiment, that occurrences of a breakout and a surface crack in the slab are predetected, and moreover, the pouring rate is automatically decreased to prevent a breakout and a surface crack. However, the method of applying the present invention is not exclusive and such a method may be adopted that only the occurrence of either a breakout or a crack is predetected and the operating conditions are manually changed by the operator, for example. Therefore, in the embodiment of Fig. 13 wherein if the current flux composition is not appropriate for the received process parameters, and the controller automatically changes the delivery of flux or flux components from the plurality of silos to provide a required flux composition to the mold for the received process parameters, it would have been obvious alternative to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the automatic change could be substituted for manual adjustment through the controller by the operator).
Regarding claim 32, its limitations are the same as all the limitations present in claim 30 (which includes all the limitations of independent claim 20), so applicant should refer to the rejection for claims 20 and 30 for the rejection of claim 32.
Regarding claim 33, Yaji teaches a method for delivering flux to a mold (mold 10, see Fig. 13; 21:29-32) during a continuous casting process, the method comprising:
receiving process parameters of the casting process at a controller, wherein the process parameters include a heat transfer rate (heat flux values measured by heat flux meters 14 are converted into heat flux signals by the transducer 52 is sent to the operational processing unit 56 (equated to the controller); see 21:29-22:5 and 23:26-25:13);
analyzing the process parameters using the controller (operational processing unit 56 analyzes the wave crest and amplitude of the waveforms received; see 23:26-25:13),
determining, using the controller, whether a current flux composition delivered to the mold from a plurality of silos each containing a different flux or flux component is appropriate for the received process parameters (23:6-22); and
if the current flux composition is not appropriate for the received process parameters,
generating, using the controller, an alert for an operator (see 21:29-22:38, 23:6-22, and 23:26-25:13 – an operational processing unit 56 for judging an abnormality of a heat flux waveform and emitting an alarm command to an alarming device 58 to inform an operator of the abnormality when the wave crest H and/or the amplitude W, both of which are emitted from the transducer 52, is gone out of the predetermined range, and so this indicates that the current flux composition is not appropriate for the received process parameters); and
changing the delivery of the flux or flux components from the plurality of silos so as to provide a required flux composition to the mold for the received process parameter (see 21:29-22:38, 23:6-22, and 23:26-25:13).
Yaji is silent to a receiver for receiving process parameters of the casting process at a controller, the process parameters including any combination of a thickness of a layer of flux on molten metal in the mold, a flux consumption rate, or a heat transfer rate, and wherein its method involves two or more process parameters.
Takahashi teaches receiving process parameters of the casting process at a controller (controller 23, see 22:3-23:34);
analysing two or more of the process parameters using the controller (see 22:3-23:34);
determining, using the controller, whether a current flux consumption is appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters (see 22:3-23:34); and
if the current flux consumption is not appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters, change the delivery of flux or flux components from the silo to provide a required flux composition to the mold for the analysed two or more process parameters (see 22:3-23:34). This allows for the controller to directly issue a control signal to the casting speed controller 18, the blown gas flow rate controller 16, the melt flow rate controller 14, and/or the powder supply unit 30 for automatic control to eliminate the abnormality (see 22:3-23:34).
In view of Takahashi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus Yaji to include a receiver for receiving process parameters of the casting process and a controller which is configured to:
analyse two or more of the process parameters received by the receiver
determine whether a current flux consumption is appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters; and
if the current flux consumption is not appropriate for the analysed two or more process parameters, change the delivery of flux or flux components from the plurality of silos to provide a required flux composition to the mold for the analysed two or more process parameters,
as taught by Takahashi, because it allows for the controller to directly issue a control signal to eliminate the abnormality (see 22:3-23:34).
The combination of Yaji and Takahashi teaches a heat transfer rate (Yaji: (heat flux meters 14, see Fig. 13; 21:29-22:5) and a controller which is used for evaluating two or more process parameters (Takahashi: see 22:3-23:34), but is silent to the process parameters including any combination of a thickness of a layer of flux on molten metal in the mold, a flux consumption rate, or a heat transfer rate
Tian teaches a method and system for a slag thickness detection and a slag-adding prediction (see [0002]). Tian teaches a laser thickness meter to calculate the real-time slag thickness corresponding to the measurement points and constructs a three-dimensional real-time dynamic model of the protective slag layer with a three-dimensional reconstruction algorithm based on two-dimensional coordinates and the slag thickness values corresponding to the measurement points (see [0072]). This allows for predicting a location on the surface of the protective slag layer where a slag-adding is to be performed and a slag-adding time when the slag-adding is to be performed (see [0072]). This helps to ensure uniform slag-adding and further improving the quality of the cast billet (see [0078]).
In view of Tian’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of the combination of Yaji and Takahashi to include, the process parameters including (i) a thickness of a layer of flux on molten metal in the mold, as taught by Tian, because it allows for real-time calculation of slag thickness and allows for predicting a location on the surface of the protective slag layer where a slag-adding is to be performed and a slag-adding time when the slag-adding is to be performed. This helps to ensure uniform slag-adding and further improving the quality of the cast billet.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian teaches wherein the thickness of the layer of flux on the molten metal is determined using a laser distance measurement device (Tian: see [0071]).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian teaches the method further comprising:
allowing the operator to instruct the controller in response to the alert to change the delivery wherein the changing of the delivery of flux or flux components from the plurality of silos to provide the required flux composition to the mold for the received process parameters (Yaji: see 20:20-22:38, 23:6-22, and 23:26-25:13 – Yaji teaches, in a different embodiment, that occurrences of a breakout and a surface crack in the slab are predetected, and moreover, the pouring rate is automatically decreased to prevent a breakout and a surface crack. However, the method of applying the present invention is not exclusive and such a method may be adopted that only the occurrence of either a breakout or a crack is predetected and the operating conditions are manually changed by the operator, for example. Therefore, in the embodiment of Fig. 13 wherein if the current flux composition is not appropriate for the received process parameters, an alert is generated, and the controller automatically changes the delivery of flux or flux components from the plurality of silos to provide a required flux composition to the mold for the received process parameters, it would have been obvious alternative to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the automatic change could be substituted for manual adjustment through the controller by the operator).
Claims 21-23 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian as applied to claims 20 and 33 above, and further in view of Orsi (US 2013/0081777; listed in the IDS filed 12 January 2024).
Regarding claims 21 and 34, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian is silent to wherein the flux consumption rate is measured using load cells.
Orsi teaches a flux feeding apparatus comprising:
a receiver (PLC 44, see Fig. 2; [0012]) for receiving two or more process parameters of the casting process (plurality of load cells 42 for weighing the hopper 14 and its contents of mold flux over a period of time for measuring the real time consumption of mold flux; see [0012]); and
a controller (PLC 44, see Fig. 2; [0012]) which is configured to:
analyze the process parameter received by the receiver, the two or more process parameters including a flux consumption rate (see [0012]);
determine whether a current flux composition is appropriate for the process parameter (see [0012]); and
if the current flux composition is not appropriate for the received process parameters, change the delivery of flux to provide a required flux composition to the mold for the received process parameter (see [0012]).
In view of Orsi’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian to include wherein the flux consumption rate is measured using load cells., as taught by Orsi, because it is also known to monitor the mold flux consumption rate to maintain a set level of mold flux.
Regarding claims 22 and 35, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, Tian, and Orsi teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises an intermediate hopper (Yaji: see Fig. 13 - equated to intermediate hopper 76) and a transfer apparatus (Yaji: equated to powder discharge feeders 74a through 74c, see Fig. 13) for transferring mold flux from the silos (Yaji: hoppers 72a through 72c, see Fig. 13) to the intermediate hopper (Yaji: see Fig. 13 - equated to intermediate hopper 76), and wherein the load cells support the intermediate hopper (Orsi: see [0012]).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., for transferring mold flux from the silos to the intermediate hopper), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claims 23 and 36, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, Tian, and Orsi teaches a feed head (Yaji: powder supply pipe 66, see Fig. 13; 22:27-33) that is connected to a feed hopper (Yaji: see Fig. 13 – equated to tube connecting intermediate hopper 76 to powder supply pipe 66), wherein the feed hopper is configured to receive flux from the intermediate hopper (Yaji: see Fig. 13 and 23:26-25:13), wherein the controller is configured to supply the feed head with flux or flux components from one or more of the plurality of silos via the intermediate hopper and the feed hopper so as to deliver the required flux composition to the mold (Yaji: see 23:6-22 and 23:26-25:13).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Pleschiutschnigg (US 6,152,209; listed in the IDS filed 12 January 2024).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian is silent to wherein the heat transfer rate is determined by measuring a temperature increase of cooling water used to cool the mold.
Pleschiutschnigg teaches wherein the heat transfer rate is determined by measuring a temperature increase of cooling water used to cool the mold (3:1-55).
In view of Pleschiutschnigg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian to include wherein the heat transfer rate is determined by measuring a temperature increase of cooling water used to cool the mold, as taught by Pleschiutschnigg, because it is a known means of determining the heat transfer rate, and the substitution of a known element (the heat transfer rate determination measurement of Yaji) for another known element (the heat transfer rate determination measurement of Pleschiutschnigg would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed with predictable results.
Claims 27 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian as applied to claims 20 and 33 above, and further in view of Umada (JP 59-125248 A; listed in the IDS filed 12 January 2024; using previously submitted English abstract).
Regarding claims 27 and 39, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian is silent to wherein the process parameters further include: a grade of metal being cast, a casting rate/speed, a slag temperature, a metal temperature, a metal thickness, a metal width, a metal section size, or a metal taper.
Umada teaches receiving process parameters including the kind of the steel to be cast and the casting speed to calculate a reference frictional force. This reference force is compared to a measured frictional force and Umada teaches minimizing the difference between the set two values by adjusting the composition of the mold flux to maintain the inside of a casting mold in the finest condition and to obtain a billet having excellent quality (see abstract).
In view of Umada’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian to include wherein the process parameters further include the kind of steel to be cast and the casting speed, as taught by Umada, because they can be used as parameters to help maintain the inside of a casting mold in the finest condition and to obtain a billet having excellent quality.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of Pleschiutschnigg (US 6,152,209; listed in the IDS filed 12 January 2024).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian is silent to wherein the heat transfer rate is determined by measuring a temperature increase of cooling water used to cool the mold.
Pleschiutschnigg teaches wherein the heat transfer rate is determined by measuring a temperature increase of cooling water used to cool the mold (3:1-55).
In view of Pleschiutschnigg’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian to include wherein the heat transfer rate is determined by measuring a temperature increase of cooling water used to cool the mold, as taught by Pleschiutschnigg, because it is a known means of determining the heat transfer rate.
Though the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian already teaches processing of a heat transfer rate (Yaji: see 21:29-22:5), it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that an additional means of determining the heat transfer rate, such as the method of Pleschiutschnigg, could be used to verify the heat flux meter readings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the prior art of Yaji, Orsi, and Tian each fail to teach analyzing two or more of the process parameters received by the receiver, and the combined teachings of Yaji, Orsi, and Tian fail to suggest to one having ordinary skill in the art analyzing two or more of the process parameters received by the receiver.
The Examiner finds these arguments moot as the current rejection relies on the combination of Yaji, Takahashi, and Tian to reject the claim limitation of analyzing two or more of the process parameters, as well as all the other claim limitations drawn to a controller having to evaluate two or more process parameters (see rejections for claims 20, 32, and 33 above – specifically, the new art of Takahashi teaches a controller which can evaluate two or more process parameters. See Takahashi 22:3-23:34).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 9 March 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735