Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 30, 2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
3. Claims 1-5 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwell (US 20110175745 A1, Atwell, P. et al.; hereinafter "Atwell") in view of Sprenger (US 20180328705 A1, Sprenger, B. et al.; hereinafter "Sprenger").
In regard to claim 1, Atwell teaches a coordinate measuring machine [portable articulated arm coordinate measuring machine (AACMM), abstract] for determining at least one spatial coordinate of a measurement point on an object [function of a coordinate measuring machine (CMM)], the coordinate measuring machine comprising a structure [AACMM 100, Fig. 1A] movably connecting a probe head [probe 118] to a base [base 116], the structure comprising a plurality of rotary joints [bearing cartridge groupings 110, 112, 114] and a plurality of elongate components [arm segments 106, 104/108 and probe housing 102], the components comprising a plurality of links [arm segments], wherein at least one rotary joint: movably connects two of the components with each other [Fig. 1A], comprises a measuring unit {data processing system, described at least in para. [0021]} comprising one or more sensors to determine at least one angle between the connected components and to generate angular data [optical angular encoder/encoder systems], wherein the coordinate measuring machine comprises a control unit [data processing system] configured: to receive the angular data {described at least in paras. [0020]-[0023]}, and to determine the at least one spatial coordinate of the measurement point based on the angular data {three-dimensional (3-D) positional calculations, described at least in paras. [0022]-[0023]}, wherein the control unit has access to distortion information about distortions occurring in the components and/or joints under a multitude of different distortion-influencing conditions of the structure {strain gauge sensors with their own axis, abstract; at least paras. [0034]-[0039] describe forces that can cause distortion (bending and twisting)}, wherein the conditions comprise at least a current pose of the structure that is defined by the angles between the components {position calculation using encoder systems is well-known in the art, described at least in paras. [0020]-[0023] and [0028]-[0033]}, the distortion information comprising pose distortion information for a multitude of different poses of the structure {at least paras. [0034]-[0039] describe bending and twisting calculations for a variety of conditions}, the control unit being configured: to receive pose distortion information for the current pose {described at least in paras. [0020]-[0023] and [0028]-[0033]}, to determine a current pose distortion based on the pose distortion information for the current pose {described at least in paras, [0034]-[0039]}, the pose distortion being a distortion of the structure due to the pose [Fig. 4 shows bending due to the position of the AACMM], to determine a current overall distortion of the structure based at least on the current pose distortion {para. [0039] describes the displacement of the measurement device as at least a result of forces applied to arm segments}, and to determine the at least one spatial coordinate also based on the current overall distortion of the structure {para. [0039] describes calculating at least the displacement of the probe tip based on at least the forces applied to the arm segments}.
Atwell does not teach a CMM that comprises a driving unit comprising a motor to actuate the connected components relative to another or that the CMM control unit controls the motor of each driving unit for driving the probe head relative to the base for approaching the measurement point, as
Atwell teaches that the AACMM is moved manually.
However, motorized CMMs are well-known in the art, as taught by Sprenger. Sprenger teaches a CMM that comprises a driving unit comprising a motor to actuate the connected components relative to another {para. [0184] describes a controlling and processing unit that actuates a motor to move the probe head to a measurement point}, and that the CMM has a control unit to control the motor of each driving unit for driving the probe head relative to the base for approaching the measurement point {para. [0184] describes a controlling and processing unit that actuates a motor to move the probe head to a measurement point}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Sprenger's controlling and processing unit with a motor to drive Atwell's AACMM in order to better remotely control the location of the probe head, a well-known engineering practice, as taught by Sprenger {para. [0184]}.
In regard to claim 2, Atwell does not teach that the conditions comprise at least one or more current accelerations of the structure that are a consequence of a motorized movement of the components, as Atwell does not teach a motor.
However, Sprenger further teaches that the conditions comprise at least one or more current accelerations of the structure that are a consequence of a motorized movement of the components {described at least in paras. [0008]-[0010]}, wherein the distortion information comprises acceleration distortion information for a multitude of different movements of the structure {at least para. [0025] describes accounting for deformation effects due to acceleration}, the control unit being configured: to determine a current acceleration of the structure {para. [0008] describes accounting for acceleration during speed-dependent calibration}, particularly based on the angular data {para. [0009] describes accelerations causing angular dynamic deflections}, to determine a current acceleration distortion based on the acceleration distortion information and on the current acceleration {dynamic measurement errors, described at least in paras. [0008]-[0010]}, and to determine the current overall distortion of the structure based also on the current acceleration distortion [abstract describes defining an actual state of measurement based on a reference element and a dynamic model].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Sprenger’s method of compensating for dynamic measurement errors caused by an acceleration of a motor with Atwell in view of Sprenger’s AACMM with a motor in order to better account for deformation effects due to acceleration, as taught by Sprenger {para. [0025]}.
In regard to claim 3, Atwell further teaches that the conditions comprise at least a current temperature distribution in the structure {at least paras. [0030]-[0031] describe calculating temperature readings}, wherein the distortion information comprises thermal distortion information in the structure {para. [0031] describes temperature corrections for measurements}, the control unit being configured: to receive temperature data {described in para. [0025]}, to determine a current temperature distribution of the structure based on the temperature data {temperature corrections para. [0031]}, to determine a current thermal distortion based on the thermal distortion information and on the current temperature distribution {temperature corrections para. [0031]}, and to determine the current overall distortion of the structure based also on the current thermal distortion {temperature corrections para. [0031]}, particularly wherein one or more temperature sensors are provided in a component {para. [0026] describes the temperature sensor being in the probe housing}, the temperature data being generated by the temperature sensors {paras. [0030]-[0031]}.
Atwell is not specific that there are a plurality of temperature sensors or that the thermal distortion information is for a multitude of different temperature distributions.
However, Sprenger further teaches that the distortion information comprises thermal distortion information for a multitude of different temperature distributions {at least paras. [0021], [0058], [0107], and [0188] describe using a plurality of sensors or sensor units along the CMM; para. [0021] describes accounting for bending effects due to inhomogeneous temperature distribution}, and that one or more temperature sensors are provided at each link or at each component {as para. [0021] describes a method of placing sensor on a support structure, para. [0058] describes that the sensors may be integral to the CMM (as well as that the combinations of sensors from other embodiments are also applicable to the integral sensor embodiment), para. [0188] describes using a sensor unit to all of the structural components of the CMM, and para. [0208] describes using sensor units for temperature-error compensation - thus a temperature sensor integral to each of the structural components of the CMM for the purpose of determining temperature-error compensation}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Sprenger's method of using of a plurality of temperature sensors on each component to measure for a multitude of different temperature distributions as Atwell’s temperature sensor system in order to better account for bending effects due to inhomogeneous temperature distribution, as taught by Sprenger {para. [0021]}.
In regard to claim 4, Atwell further teaches that the amount of pose distortion is at least partly a consequence of gravity {described in para. [0034], shown in Fig. 4}, wherein the distortion information comprises the pose distortion information for a multitude of different poses of the structure under the influence of a multitude of different gravitational values {para. [0017] describes that the probe can be at any desired location about the base, para. [0034] describes the arm segments experiencing bending and twisting due to gravity, and at least paras. [0035]-[0039] describe a plurality of embodiments where the forces applied to the arm segments (i.e. gravitational forces) are determined through the readings of strain gauges - thus a plurality of distortion information gathered at a plurality of different poses for a plurality of different gravitational forces}, the control unit being configured: to determine a gravitational value for a current location of the coordinate measuring machine {described at least paras. [0035]-[0039] describe a plurality of embodiments where the forces applied to the arm segments (i.e. gravitational forces) are determined through the readings of strain gauges}, particularly for a current geographic location {as the gravitational forces are calculated based on strain gauge deflection, it is obvious that the gravitational force is being calculated for the current location - further, para. [0031] describes an option to utilize a global positioning system (GPS)}, and to determine the current pose distortion based also on the gravitational value {described in para. [0034]}, wherein the control unit is configured to receive position data related to a location of the coordinate measuring machine and to determine the current location of the coordinate measuring machine based on the position data {described at least in paras. [0034]-[0039]}.
In regard to claim 5, Atwell further teaches that the distortion information relates to distortions occurring in each of the links {described at least in paras. [0034]-[0039]}, and/or the elongate components further comprise the base and/or the probe head [probe housing 102 functions as an elongate component to hold the probe head, shown in Fig. 1A].
In regard to claim 9, Atwell further teaches that at least one measuring unit is configured to determine relative poses between two links in at least five degrees of freedom {para. [0017] describes using angular encoders to determine relative poses in six or seven degrees of freedom}.
In regard to claim 10, Atwell further teaches that the distortion information is provided as part of a digital model of the coordinate measuring machine {para. [0003] describes providing measurement data as a 3-D digital model on a computer screen, para. [0039] describes the measurement data (displacement of the measurement device/probe tip) as based on at least the forces applied to the arm segments (distortion information)}.
In regard to claim 11, Atwell teaches a computer-implemented method {computational methods described at least in paras. [0050]-[0058]} for controlling a coordinate measuring machine [AACMM, abstract], to determine at least one spatial coordinate of a measurement point on an object to be measured [function of a CMM], wherein the coordinate measuring machine comprises a [AACMM 100, Fig. 1A] movably connecting a probe head [probe 118] to a base [base 116], the structure comprising a plurality of rotary joints [bearing cartridge groupings 110, 112, 114] and a plurality of elongate components [arm segments 106, 104/108 and probe housing 102], the components comprising a plurality of links [arm segments], wherein at least one rotary joint: movably connecting two of the components with each other [Fig. 1A], a measuring unit {data processing system, described at least in para. [0021]} with one or more angular sensors to measure at least one angle between the connected components and to generate angular data [optical angular encoder/encoder systems], the method comprising: receiving the angular data {described at least in paras. [0020]-[0023]}, receiving distortion information about distortions occurring in the components under a multitude of different distortion-influencing conditions {strain gauge sensors with their own axis, abstract; at least paras. [0034]-[0039] describe forces that can cause distortion (bending and twisting); at least paras. [0040]-[0043] describe data signal communication}, wherein the conditions comprise at least a current pose of the structure that is defined by the angles between the links {position calculation using encoder systems is well-known in the art, described at least in paras. [0020]-[0023] and [0028]-[0033]}, the distortion information comprising pose distortion information for a multitude of different poses of the structure {at least paras. [0034]-[0039] describe bending and twisting calculations for a variety of conditions}, determining a current pose distortion based on the pose distortion information and on the angular data {described at least in paras, [0034]-[0039]}, determining a current overall distortion of the structure based at least on the current pose distortion {para. [0039] describes the displacement of the measurement device as at least a result of forces applied to arm segments}, and determining the at least one spatial coordinate of the measurement point based on the angular data and on the determined current overall distortion {para. [0039] describes calculating at least the displacement of the probe tip based on at least the forces applied to the arm segments}.
Atwell does not teach a CMM that comprises a driving unit comprising a motor to actuate the connected components relative to another or that the CMM control unit controls the motor of each driving unit for driving the probe head relative to the base for approaching the measurement point, as
Atwell teaches that the AACMM is moved manually.
However, motorized CMMs are well-known in the art, as taught by Sprenger. Sprenger teaches a CMM that comprises a driving unit comprising a motor to actuate the connected components relative to another {para. [0184] describes a controlling and processing unit that actuates a motor to move the probe head to a measurement point}, and that the CMM has a control unit to control the motor of each driving unit for driving the probe head relative to the base for approaching the measurement point {para. [0184] describes a controlling and processing unit that actuates a motor to move the probe head to a measurement point}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Sprenger's controlling and processing unit with a motor to drive Atwell's AACMM in order to better remotely control the location of the probe head, a well-known engineering practice.
In regard to claim 12, Atwell does not teach that the conditions comprise at least one or more current accelerations of the structure that are a consequence of a motorized movement of the components, as Atwell does not teach a motor.
However, Sprenger further teaches that the conditions comprise at least current accelerations of the structure that are a consequence of a motorized movement of the components, {described at least in paras. [0008]-[0010]}, wherein the distortion information comprises acceleration distortion information for a multitude of different movements of the structure {at least para. [0025] describes accounting for deformation effects due to acceleration}, the method comprising: determining a current movement or acceleration of the structure {para. [0008] describes accounting for acceleration during speed-dependent calibration}, particularly based on the angular data {para. [0009] describes accelerations causing angular dynamic deflections}, and determining a current acceleration distortion based on the acceleration distortion information and on the current movement {dynamic measurement errors, described at least in paras. [0008]-[0010]}, wherein determining the current overall distortion of the structure is also based on the current acceleration distortion [abstract describes defining an actual state of measurement based on a reference element and a dynamic model].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Sprenger’s method of compensating for dynamic measurement errors caused by an acceleration of a motor with Atwell in view of Sprenger’s AACMM with a motor in order to better account for deformation effects due to acceleration, as taught by Sprenger {para. [0025]}.
In regard to claim 13, Atwell further teaches that the conditions comprise at least a current temperature distribution in the structure {at least paras. [0030]-[0031] describe calculating temperature readings}, the method comprising: receiving temperature data {described in para. [0025]}, determining a current temperature distribution of the structure based on the temperature data {temperature corrections para. [0031]}, and determining a current thermal distortion based on the thermal distortion information and on the current temperature distribution {temperature corrections para. [0031]},
wherein determining the current overall distortion of the structure is also based on the current thermal distribution {temperature corrections para. [0031]}.
Atwell is not specific that the thermal distortion information is for a multitude of different temperature distributions.
However, Sprenger further teaches that the distortion information comprises thermal distortion information for a multitude of different temperature distributions {at least paras. [0021], [0058], [0107], and [0188] describe using a plurality of sensors or sensor units along the CMM; para. [0021] describes accounting for bending effects due to inhomogeneous temperature distribution}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Sprenger's method of measuring for a multitude of different temperature distributions as Atwell’s temperature sensor system measurement in order to better account for bending effects due to inhomogeneous temperature distribution, as taught by Sprenger {para. [0021]}.
In regard to claim 14, Atwell teaches that the amount of pose distortion is at least partly a consequence of gravity {described in para. [0034], shown in Fig. 4}, wherein the distortion information comprises the pose distortion information for a multitude of different poses of the structure under the influence of a multitude of different gravitational values {para. [0017] describes that the probe can be at any desired location about the base, para. [0034] describes the arm segments experiencing bending and twisting due to gravity, and at least paras. [0035]-[0039] describe a plurality of embodiments where the forces applied to the arm segments (i.e. gravitational forces) are determined through the readings of strain gauges - thus a plurality of distortion information gathered at a plurality of different poses for a plurality of different gravitational forces}, the method comprising: receiving position data related to a location of the coordinate measuring machine {at least paras. [0006]-[0007] describe how a CMM determines position data relative to the location of the base}, particularly a geographic location {para. [0031] describes an option to utilize a GPS}, determining a current location of the coordinate measuring machine based on the position data {at least paras. [0006]-[0007] describe how a CMM determines position data relative to the location of the base}, and determining a gravitational value for the current location {described at least paras. [0035]-[0039] describe a plurality of embodiments where the forces applied to the arm segments (i.e. gravitational forces) are determined through the readings of strain gauges - further, as the gravitational forces are calculated based on strain gauge deflection, it is obvious that the gravitational force is being calculated for the current location}, wherein determining the current pose distortion is also based on the gravitational value for the current location {described in para. [0034]}.
In regard to claim 15, Atwell teaches a computer program product comprising program code {at least para. [0054] describes embodiments of a program code} which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium {at least paras. [0050]-[0054] describe computer storage mediums}, and having computer-executable instructions for performing when executed in a control unit of a coordinate measuring machine {described at least in paras. [0050]-[0058]}.
In regard to claim 16, Atwell teaches a computer program product comprising program code {at least para. [0054] describes embodiments of a program code} which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium {at least paras. [0050]-[0054] describe computer storage mediums}, and having computer-executable instructions for performing when executed in a control unit of a coordinate measuring machine {described at least in paras. [0050]-[0058]}.
4. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwell in view of Sprenger as applied to claims 1-5 and 9-16 above, and further in view of Crampton (US 20050166413 A1, Crampton, S.; hereinafter "Crampton").
In regard to claim 6, Atwell teaches that at least a subset of the components, particularly at least a subset of the links, comprises supporting elements that are made from a first material or material composition, and the first material composition comprises light metals, particularly aluminum, light metal alloys, ceramics, plastics and/or carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers {para. [0026] describes that the arm segments are made of a carbon composite material}.
Atwell is not specific as to the material used in the rotary joints, nor is Atwell specific regarding the comparison of material properties of the components/links in comparison to the rotary joints.
However, the use of different materials for rotary joints and components/links is well-known in the art, as taught by Crampton. Crampton also teaches a CMM with link members [link members 102] comprised of a first material composition of carbon-fiber polymers and aluminum {para. [0238] teaches using a carbon-fiber composite such as Toray T700 with housing caps made of aircraft aluminum, shown in Fig. 5A}, and that the rotary joints [bearings] are made of a second material comprising steel {para. [0343] describes that the bearings are preferably made of steel for its wear-resistance – since high-alloy steels are known for their wear-resistance and are commonly used for rolling element bearings, it would be obvious to use a high-alloy steel}.
As such, Crampton teaches that both materials of the first composition are more flexible than the second material {Toray T700 composite has a modulus of elasticity of 140 GPa [see “T700G Commercial Documentation”, Toray Carbon-fibers Europe, page 2, “Composite Properties” table; (Ref U in attached PTO-892; hereinafter “Ref U”)], aircraft aluminum 6061-O has a modulus of elasticity of 68.9 GPa [see “Aluminum 6061-O”, MatWeb LLC, page 1, “Mechanical Properties” table; (Ref X in attached PTO-892; hereinafter “Ref X”)] and steels have a modulus of elasticity of at least 190 GPa [see “General Properties of Steels”, eFunda Inc., page 2, table; (Ref W in attached PTO-892; hereinafter “Ref W”)] – thus Toray T700 composite and aircraft aluminum both are more flexible than steel}.
Further, Crampton teaches that both materials of the first composition have a lower density than the second material {Toray T700 composite has a density of 1.57 g/cm3 [[calculated from 60% Toray T700G fiber density of 1.78 g/cm3 (Ref U, page 2, “Fiber Properties” table) and 40% Toray 3900 resin density of 1.25 g/cm3 [see “3900 Prepreg System Data Sheet”, Toray Composite Materials America, Inc., page 2, “Neat Resin Physical Properties” table; (Ref V in attached PTO-892; hereinafter “Ref V”)]; formula provided under Ref U, page 2, “Composite Properties” footnote]], aircraft aluminum has a density of 2.70 g/cm3 [Ref X, page 1, “Physical Properties” table], and steel has a density of at least 7.72 g/cm3 [Ref W, page 1, table] – thus Toray T700 composite and aircraft aluminum both have a lower density than steel}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Crampton’s steel rotary joints and link arms composed of carbon-fiber and aircraft aluminum for Atwell in view of Sprenger’s CMM rotary joints and carbon-fiber link arms in order for the bearings to have a longer life than the CMM arm, thus better avoiding expensive replacement costs, as taught by Crampton {para. [0343]}.
In regard to claim 7, Atwell in view of Sprenger is not specific as to the location of the driving unit in regard to the measuring unit.
However, Crampton also teaches that the measuring unit [angular encoders 178] of each rotary joint {para. [0262] describes each rotary joint has an angular encoder; para. [0277] describes an embodiment where the angular encoders 178 are the only encoders for the joints} are provided in separate housings [Fig. 13B shows the motors mounted on the outside of the exoskeleton] so that the driving unit is thermally decoupled from the joints {paras. [0270]-[0274] describe that the that the motors and drive components are mounted with minimal contact to reduce heat transfer to the CMM arm, which includes the joints (shown in Fig. 2)}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used Crampton’s method of mounting motors externally and in separate housings with Atwell in view of Springer’s motors in order to better increase accuracy by keeping rotary joints and link arms a comparatively stable and uniform temperature, as taught by Crampton {para. [0271]}.
4. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atwell in view of Sprenger as applied to claims 1-5 and 9-16 above, and further in view of Raab (US 20040103547 A1, Raab, S. et al.; hereinafter "Raab").
In regard to claim 8, Atwell teaches that each rotary encoder being configured to determine a relative pose between a first link and a second link with at least three degrees of freedom {para. [0017] describes using angular encoders to determine relative poses in six or seven degrees of freedom; Figs. 1A and 1B show that the bearing cartridge groupings 110, 112, and 114, para. [0020] describes the movement}.
Although Atwell teaches that each bearing cartridge grouping 110, 112, and 114 contains an encoder system {para. [0017] describes an optical angular encoder system}, Atwell in view of Sprenger is not specific that there are at least two angular encoders in at least one rotary joint.
However, utilizing a plurality of angular encoders in a rotary joint is well-known in the art, as taught by Raab. Raab teaches a portable CMM with rotary joints [bearing cartridges] that use angular encoders, where each cartridge preferably has two or more encoders in each rotary joint {para. [0011]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Raab’s plurality of optical angular encoders in an encoder system in each rotary joint for Atwell in view of Sprenger’s optical encoder system in each rotary joint in order to better average the readout of the angular encoder system, as taught by Raab {para. [0011]}.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL QUINN whose telephone number is (571)272-2690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30 PST.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached at (571)272-4107. 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.
/DANIEL M QUINN/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855