DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a securing device and control module, of claim 9.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites securing, using a securing device, the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component; obtaining information indicative of an acoustic signal emitted during the securing the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component; and inputting the information indicative of the acoustic signal into a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is configured to provide an output indicative of a fault condition of the mechanical connection which falls into the abstract idea of mental concepts related to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. The claim recites a machine leaning model, which is considered to encompasses linear algebra, calculus, probability and statistics. These branches enable data representation, model optimization, and uncertainty quantification, with linear algebra managing data as vectors/matrices, calculus facilitating optimization (gradient descent), and probability/statistics handling predictions and trends; thereby falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claim as a whole, is directed towards abstract ideas encompassing both math and mental concepts.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a mechanical connection, a first and second aircraft component merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves these generically recited abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim recites the additional elements a securing device and obtaining information step involving acoustic signals. These identified additional elements are directed to an insignificant pre-solution data gathering step, where the obtained information is merely data fed into the abstract idea; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the data gathering step. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, although the claim implies a computer environment, these unclaimed computer elements are merely acting as tools for performing the abstract idea. The additional elements related to the aircraft components merely link the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result does nothing to improve these additional elements. Lastly, the limitations directed towards gathering the data needed to feed the mathematical model do not amount to significantly more, as the data is merely needed to perform the mental and mathematical concepts in a computer environment. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible
Claim 2 further defines the abstract idea involving mathematical concepts, as training a machine learning model involves concepts related to linear algebra, calculus, probability and statistics. Therefore, the claim as a whole, fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(a)
Claim 3 further defines an output of the abstract idea involving the machine learning model. The outputted result merely reads as an instruction to apply the exception without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claims 4 and 16 further define the additional element directed towards the data gathering step of claims 1 and 15. The further defined sound signal being an acoustic signal from the aircraft does not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, as the acoustic signal is merely what is fed into the mathematical model to perform the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim as a whole, fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 5 and 17 further define the additional element directed towards the data gathering step of claims 4 and 12. The further defined acoustic signal does not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, as the signal is merely what is fed into the mathematical model to perform the identified abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim as a whole, fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 6, 7, 10, 19 and 20 further define the data gathering additional element step by reciting how the securing device is attached to the airplane components. These elements, i.e. fastener/single sided fastener are considered to be additional elements related to the insignificant pre-solution data gathering steps, as the claimed fastener is neither improved or bettered by the abstract ideas themselves. Therefore, the claim as a whole, fails to provide significantly more or integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 8 and 11 further define when the fastener is attached to the aircraft components. The limitations are considered to be additional elements related to the insignificant pre-solution data gathering step without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 9 recites a securing device configured to secure the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component with a mechanical connection in use; a microphone configured to receive an acoustic signal emitted by the securing device in use; and a control module comprising a memory storing a machine learning model configured to receive an input from the microphone and output information indicative of a fault condition of the mechanical connection which falls into the abstract idea of mental concepts related to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Although the claim recites control module, a memory and a machine leaning model, these elements are considered to be additional elements describing tools tasked to perform the identified abstract idea. Further, the machine learning model encompasses linear algebra, calculus, probability and statistics. These mathematical branches enable data representation, model optimization, and uncertainty quantification, with linear algebra managing data as vectors/matrices, calculus facilitating optimization (gradient descent), and probability/statistics handling predictions and trends. Therefore, the claim as a whole, is directed towards abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a first aircraft and second components merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves these generically recited abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim recites the additional elements of a securing device and obtaining information step involving acoustic signals. These identified additional elements are directed to an insignificant pre-solution data gathering step, where the obtained information is merely fed into the abstract idea; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the data gathering step. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claimed computer environment is merely acting as tools for performing the abstract idea. The additional elements related to the aircraft merely link the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result does nothing to improve these elements. Lastly, the limitation directed towards gathering the needed data to feed that data into a mathematical model does not amount to significantly more, as the data is merely needed to perform the mental concepts in a computer environment. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites securing, using a securing device, the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component; monitoring a property of the securing device while securing the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component; monitoring an acoustic signal emitted while securing the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component; and determining, based on the property of the securing device and the acoustic signal, whether inspection of the mechanical connection is required which falls into the abstract idea of mental concepts related to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Therefore, the claim as a whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a mechanical connection, a first aircraft and a second aircraft component merely link the abstract idea to a field of use; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves these generically recited abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim recites the additional elements a securing device and obtaining information step. These identified additional elements are directed to an insignificant pre-solution data gathering step, where the obtained information is merely fed into the abstract idea; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the data gathering step. Therefore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, although the claims imply a computer environment, these unclaimed computer elements are merely acting as tools for performing the abstract idea. The additional elements related to the aircraft components merely link the abstract idea to a field of use, as the result does nothing to improve these elements or the aircraft technology itself. Lastly, the limitation directed towards gathering the needed data to perform the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more, as the data is merely needed to perform the mental concepts in a computer environment. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 13 and 15 further define the abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mental concepts, as comparing the collected data is a limitation capable of being performed in the human man, with the aid of pen and paper. Further, defining what that data is composed of does not provide significantly more or integrate the abstract into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites providing an indication when the data differs from a threshold. The outputted indication merely reads as an instruction to apply the exception without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 18 further defines a sound emitted by the securing device when attached to the aircraft. The limitations are considered to be additional elements related to the insignificant pre-solution data gathering step without providing significantly more or integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(g)
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwon et al. (2018/0328797) in view of (Abbott et al. (2022/0299946).
With respect to claim 1, Gwon et al. a method of monitoring a mechanical connection between a first aircraft component and a second aircraft component (Gwon et al. teaches a fastener being part of a mechanical assemble fastening components of a power plant turbine; the examiner considers the teaching of the power plant turbine reading on the claimed first and second aircraft components, as a turbine is capable of being part of an aircraft; insofar as what is structurally recited defining these components), the method comprising: securing, using a securing device, the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (Gwon et al. teaches in [001] directly measuring sound when fastening a bolt using a power tool; [0044]); and obtaining information indicative of an acoustic signal emitted during the securing the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (Gwon et al. teaches using a detector at S20 to measure a vibrational sound; [0045-0046].
Gwon et al. remains silent regarding inputting the information indicative of the acoustic signal into a machine learning model, wherein the machine learning model is configured to provide an output indicative of a fault condition of the mechanical connection.
Abbott et al. teaches a similar method including inputting information indicative of an acoustic signal (i.e. sound; as Table 5 discloses inputting sound into a machine learning model) into a machine learning model (i.e. a machine learning controller storing a machine learning model, as seen in Fig. 1 and para. [0062]), wherein the machine learning model [0062] is configured to provide an output indicative of a fault condition of the mechanical connection (as the trained model is disclosed to determined conditions like unseated or stripped; [0078] [0187], Table 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Gwon et al. to include the machine learning model of Abbott et al. because such a modification allows the output of the machine learning controller to better operate a securing device and achieve a greater operating efficiency; [0134], thereby improving the fastening capabilities of Gwon et al..
With respect to claim 2, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method comprising training the machine learning model using training data (as seen in Fig. 6 of Abbott et al.), wherein the training data comprises information indicative of a plurality of acoustic signals with known fault conditions (as Table 5 of Abbott et al. discloses the various training data used to train the machine learning model, including data indicative of stripping and past screw).
With respect to claim 3, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method wherein the output provided by the machine learning model (of Abbott et al.) is indicative of whether inspection of the mechanical connection is required (as Table 6 of Abbott et al. discloses a possible output of the machine learning model being a recommendation of inspection).
With respect to claim 4, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method wherein the information indicative of the acoustic signal comprises a sound signature (Fig. 2a of Gwon et al.) of an acoustic signal emitted by the securing device (i.e. power tool, as taught in Gwon et al.) during the securing the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (i.e. during securing of components forming a joint in the aircraft).
With respect to claim 5, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method wherein the sound signature comprises the sound signature (as seen in Fig. 2A of Gwon et al.) comprises a duration of the acoustic signal (as the time of flight is seen in the x-axis).
With respect to claim 6, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method comprising securing, using the securing device (i.e. the power tool taught in Gwon et al.), the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (of the power plant turbine) by applying a fastener (i.e. bolt) between the first aircraft component and the second aircraft component (Abstract of Gwon et al.).
With respect to claims 7 and 19, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method wherein the first aircraft component is secured to the second aircraft component by a single-sided fastener (as Abbott et al. teaches sound signals being generated during the fastening of sheet metal screws, for example).
With respect to claim 8, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method comprising securing, using the securing device (i.e. the power tool taught in Gwon et al.), the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (of the power plant) during an aircraft assembly process (as Gwon et al. is concerned with detecting bolts during assembly of engine components; [0005]).
With respect to claim 9, Gwon et al. a system (Gwon et al. teaches a computer environment system; Fig. 1) for securing a first aircraft component to a second aircraft component (Gwon et al. teaches a fastener being part of a mechanical assemble fastening components of a power plant turbine; the examiner considers the teaching of the power plant turbine reading on the claimed first and second aircraft components, as a turbine is capable of being part of an aircraft; insofar as what is structurally recited defining these components) comprising: a securing device (a power tool; [0044]) configured to secure the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (i.e. components of the power plant turbine; insofar as how they are structurally defined) with a mechanical connection (bolt) in use; and a microphone [0046] configured to receive an acoustic signal emitted by the securing device in use (Gwon et al. teaches using a detector at S20 to measure a vibrational sound; [0045-0046].
Gwon et al. remains silent regarding a control module comprising a memory storing a machine learning model configured to receive an input from the microphone and output information indicative of a fault condition of the mechanical connection.
Abbott et al. teaches a similar system, including a control module (540) comprising a memory (580) storing a machine learning model, Fig. 1 and [0062]) configured to receive an input of an acoustic signal (i.e. sound; as Table 5 discloses inputting sound into a machine learning model) and output information indicative of a fault condition of the mechanical connection (as the trained model is disclosed to determined conditions like unseated or stripped; [0078] [0187], Table 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Gwon et al. to include the machine learning model of Abbott et al. because such a modification allows the output of the machine learning controller to better operate a securing device and achieve a greater operating efficiency; [0134], thereby improving the fastening capabilities of Gwon et al..
With respect to claim 10, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the system wherein the securing device (i.e. power tool of Gwon et al.) is configured to secure the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (i.e. the components of the power plant turbine) by applying a fastener (bolt) between the first aircraft component and the second aircraft component (i.e. during securing of components forming a joint in the aircraft).
With respect to claim 11, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the system wherein the securing device (i.e. the power tool taught in Gwon et al.) is configured to secure the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component during an aircraft assembly process (as Gwon et al. is concerned with detecting bolts during assembly of engine components, which is capable of occurring during the assembly of the turbine to be part of an aircraft, insofar as what is structurally recited; [0005]).
With respect to claim 12, Gwon et al. a method of determining a characteristic of a mechanical connection (i.e. joint; abstract) between a first aircraft component and a second aircraft component (Gwon et al. teaches a fastener being part of a mechanical assemble fastening components of a power plant turbine; the examiner considers the teaching of the power plant turbine reading on the claimed first and second aircraft components, as a turbine is capable of being part of an aircraft; insofar as what is structurally recited defining these components), the method comprising: securing, using a securing device (i.e. power tool; [0044]), the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (of the power plant turbine); monitoring a property (i.e. force; insofar as what is structurally recited for “monitoring a property”) of the securing device (power tool; [0044]) while securing the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (i.e. the examiner considers the received acoustic sound vibration being a property of the securing device during fastening); monitoring an acoustic signal (S20) emitted while securing the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (during the fastening of the joint).
Gwon et al. remains silent regarding determining, based on the property of the securing device and the acoustic signal, whether inspection of the mechanical connection is required.
Abbott et al. teaches a similar system including determining, based on a property of the securing device (i.e. motor characteristics; [0136]) and an acoustic signal (i.e. a sound generated during fastening; Table 5), whether inspection of the mechanical connection is required (as Abbott et al. teach based on motor characteristics and sound, as inputted into a model, the system will indicate if inspection needs to occur; Table 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the method of Gwon et al. to include model determination using collected securing device data and generated sounds of Abbott et al. because such a modification allows the output of the machine learning controller to better operate a securing device and achieve a greater operating efficiency; [0134], thereby improving the fastening capabilities of Gwon et al..
With respect to claim 13, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method wherein determining whether inspection of the mechanical connection is required (as taught by Abbott et al.) comprises comparing the property of the securing device against a property threshold [0140] and comparing the acoustic signal against an acoustic signal threshold (i.e. vibrational thresholds; Table 7 of Abbott et al.).
With respect to claim 14, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method further comprising providing an indication (via the display of Gwon et al.) if the acoustic signal differs from the acoustic signal threshold by greater than a predetermined amount (as the combination as a whole indicates on the display that a problem was detected based on the comparison being larger than the defined threshold for the acoustic signal; [0072] of Abbott et al., as the threshold are stored and used to compare the detected data against the stored thresholds).
With respect to claim 15, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method wherein comparing the acoustic signal against the acoustic signal threshold (as taught in Abbott et al.) comprises comparing a sound signature of the acoustic signal against the acoustic signal threshold (as Abbott et al. teaches using training data, therefore the combination as a whole would involve training the model found in Abbott et al. such that the detected acoustic signal in Gwon et al. is compared against a sound signature to determined abnormal conditions).
With respect to claim 16, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method wherein the sound signature of the acoustic signal comprises a duration of the acoustic signal (based on time of flight, as taught in Gwon et al. [0006]).
With respect to claim 17, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method wherein the property of the securing device comprises an electrical current provided to the securing device (as Table 7 details sensed properties of the securing device, including current).
With respect to claim 18, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method wherein the acoustic signal comprises a sound emitted by the securing device (i.e. power tool, as taught in Gwon et al.; [0044]) while securing the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (as Gwon et al. teaches the sound created is during joining the fastener to power plant turbine components).
With respect to claim 19, Gwon et al. as modified by Abbott et al. teaches the method wherein the first aircraft component is secured to the second aircraft component by a fastener (i.e. bolt) and the acoustic signal comprises a sound emitted by the fastener (i.e. bolt) while securing the first aircraft component to the second aircraft component (during assembly of the power plant).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EL-Bakry et al. (2011/0219878.) which teaches using acoustic emissions to measure the structurally integrity of aircraft components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853