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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claims 1, 11, and 20 Applicant argues:
“Independent claim 1 has been amended to require ‘a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the first pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful.’ In one example, the sensor may be a pressure sensor. Independent claims 11 and 20 have been similarly amended. Neither Austrheim-1, nor any of the secondary references, teach or suggest the claimed sensor. Therefore, independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are not rendered obvious by the cited prior art and are in condition for allowance. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19 are in condition for allowance for at least the same reasons.”
However, the secondary reference of Pistorino clearly discloses “a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the first pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful” in paragraph [0091]. Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 12 Applicant argues:
“Initially, Applicant respectfully submits that a POSITA would not have been motivated to combine the references as contended in the Action. In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention…”
However, simply that there are differences between two references is insufficient to establish that such references "teach away" from any combination thereof. In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312-13, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973); In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968); In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). In addition, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962). Therefore, this argument is not convincing.
For the foregoing reasons claims 1-20 stand rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10-11, 13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0073279) and further in view of Pistorino (USPGPUB 2016/0136816).
Regarding claim 1, Austrheim et al. disclose a robot, comprising:
a body (30) coupled to a wheel assembly (32), the wheel assembly (32) arranged to move the body along a first set of parallel rails (see Figures 7-8) extending in a first horizontal direction and a second set of parallel rails (see Figures 7-8) extending in a second horizontal direction perpendicular to the first horizontal direction;
an air tank (see “air pump” in paragraph [0111]) and/or a vacuum generator;
a picking manipulator (40) coupled to the body and in fluid communication with the air tank, the picking manipulator having at least three degrees of freedom (see paragraph [0109]); and
a first pneumatic gripping element (49) moveable by the picking manipulator for grasping inventory items (see Figures 4a-4b).
However, they do not disclose an air tank configured to store compressed air and a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the first pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful. Pistorino discloses an air tank configured to store compressed air (see paragraph [0080]) and a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the first pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful (see paragraph [0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot disclosed by Austrheim et al. by including an air tank configured to store compressed air and a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the first pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful, as disclosed by Pistorino, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing “a pneumatic pump operates to store compressed air in a tank” (see paragraph [0080]) and to provide a control computer an indication “that something has become attached to the pick-up head” (see paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 3, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino disclose the robot of claim 1. Furthermore, Pistorino discloses an apparatus wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor (see paragraph [0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot disclosed by Austrheim et al. by including an apparatus wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor, as disclosed by Pistorino, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a control computer an indication “that something has become attached to the pick-up head” (see paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 10, Austrheim et al. disclose the robot of claim 1, wherein the wheel assembly (32) includes a first set of wheels oriented in the first horizontal direction to guide movement of the body along the first set of parallel rails and a second set of wheels oriented in the second horizontal direction to guide movement of the body along the second set of parallel rails (see Figure 3a).
Regarding claim 11, Austrheim et al. disclose a system, comprising:
a storage structure (see Figures 7-8) including vertical members supporting a grid (104) formed of a first set of parallel rails (see Figures 7-8) extending in a first horizontal direction and a second set of parallel rails (see Figures 7-8) extending in a second horizontal direction substantially perpendicular to the first horizontal direction, the grid (104) defining a plurality of grid spaces (see Figures 1-2 and 7-8);
a plurality of containers (6) arranged in vertical stacks, each one of the vertical stacks arranged underneath a respective one of the grid spaces (see paragraph [0102]); and
a robot, comprising:
a body (30) coupled to a wheel assembly (32), the wheel assembly (32) arranged to move the body along the first set of parallel rails and the second set of parallel rails (see Figures 6a-8) and/or a vacuum generator;
an air tank (see “air pump” in paragraph [0111]);
a picking manipulator (40) coupled to the body and in fluid communication with the air tank, the picking manipulator having at least three degrees of freedom (see paragraph [0109]); and
a pneumatic gripping element (49a) moveable by the picking manipulator for grasping inventory items (see Figures 4a-4b).
However, they do not disclose an air tank configured to store compressed air and a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful. Pistorino discloses an air tank configured to store compressed air (see paragraph [0080]) and a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful (see paragraph [0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Austrheim et al. by including an air tank configured to store compressed air and a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful, as disclosed by Pistorino, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing “a pneumatic pump operates to store compressed air in a tank” (see paragraph [0080]) and to provide a control computer an indication “that something has become attached to the pick-up head” (see paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 13, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino disclose the system of claim 11. Furthermore, Pistorino discloses a system wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor (see paragraph [0091]) or a camera. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Austrheim et al. by including a system wherein the sensor is a pressure sensor or a camera, as disclosed by Pistorino, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a control computer an indication “that something has become attached to the pick-up head” (see paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 19, Austrheim et al. disclose The robot of claim 11, wherein the pneumatic gripping element is moveable by the picking manipulator in a vertical direction below the grid to pick inventory from the plurality of containers (see Figure 6a).
Regarding claim 20, Austrheim et al. disclose a robot, comprising:
a body (30) coupled to a wheel assembly (32) arranged to move the body along a surface in horizontal direction (see Figures 6a-8);
an air tank (see “air pump” in paragraph [0111]) and/or a vacuum generator;
a picking manipulator (40) coupled to the body and in fluid communication with the air tank, the picking manipulator having at least three degrees of freedom (see paragraph [0109]); and
a first pneumatic gripping element (49a) moveable by the picking manipulator for grasping inventory items (see Figures 4a-4b).
However, they do not disclose an air tank configured to store compressed air and a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful. Pistorino discloses an air tank configured to store compressed air (see paragraph [0080]) and a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful (see paragraph [0091]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot disclosed by Austrheim et al. by including an air tank configured to store compressed air and a sensor for determining whether a pick or place attempt performed by the pneumatic gripping element was successful or unsuccessful, as disclosed by Pistorino, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing “a pneumatic pump operates to store compressed air in a tank” (see paragraph [0080]) and to provide a control computer an indication “that something has become attached to the pick-up head” (see paragraph [0091]).
Claim(s) 2, 4, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0073279) in view of Pistorino (USPGPUB 2016/0136816) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Lithgow (USPGPUB 2004/0161283).
Regarding claim 2, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino disclose the robot of claim 1. However, they do not disclose an apparatus wherein the air tank is refillable. Lithgow discloses an apparatus wherein the air tank is refillable (see paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a robot wherein the air tank is refillable, as disclosed by Lithgow, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing an air line for refilling the air tank (see paragraph [0021]).
Furthermore, Lithgow does not specifically disclose a size wherein the air tank has a volume of less than 20 cubic feet. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the modification amounts to a change in size and a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino disclose the robot of claim 1. However, they do not disclose an apparatus further comprising a coupler having a mating end in selective communication with the air tank, the mating end of the coupler being configured to access compressed air from an external source to refill the air tank. Lithgow discloses an apparatus further comprising a coupler having a mating end in selective communication with the air tank, the mating end of the coupler being configured to access compressed air from an external source to refill the air tank (see paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a robot further comprising a coupler having a mating end in selective communication with the air tank, the mating end of the coupler being configured to access compressed air from an external source to refill the air tank, as disclosed by Lithgow, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing an air line for refilling the air tank (see paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 12, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino disclose the system of claim 11. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the air tank is refillable. Lithgow discloses a system wherein the air tank is refillable (see paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a system wherein the air tank is refillable, as disclosed by Lithgow, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing an air line for refilling the air tank (see paragraph [0021]).
Furthermore, Lithgow does not specifically disclose a size wherein the air tank has a volume of less than 20 cubic feet. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the modification amounts to a change in size and a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 5-8, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0073279) in view of Pistorino (USPGPUB 2016/0136816) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Austrheim et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0002077).
Regarding claim 5, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino disclose the robot of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a robot further comprising a second pneumatic gripping element. Austrheim et al. disclose a robot further comprising a second pneumatic gripping element (see “41”, “41’”, and “41”” in Figure 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a robot further comprising a second pneumatic gripping element, as disclosed by Austrheim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a vehicle assembly with eight vehicles and three picking arms (see paragraph [0145]).
Regarding claim 6, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino and further in view of Austrheim et al. disclose the robot of claim 5. Furthermore, Austrheim et al. disclose a robot wherein the first pneumatic gripping element and the second pneumatic gripping element are provided on a single tool (see “10” in Figure 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a robot wherein the first pneumatic gripping element and the second pneumatic gripping element are provided on a single tool, as disclosed by Austrheim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a vehicle assembly with eight vehicles and three picking arms (see paragraph [0145]).
Regarding claim 7, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino and further in view of Austrheim et al. disclose the robot of claim 5. Furthermore, Austrheim et al. disclose a robot wherein the first pneumatic gripping element is provided on a first tool and the second pneumatic gripping element is provided on a second tool different from the first tool (see “41” and “41’” in Figure 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a robot wherein the first pneumatic gripping element is provided on a first tool and the second pneumatic gripping element is provided on a second tool different from the first tool, as disclosed by Austrheim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a vehicle assembly with eight vehicles and three picking arms (see paragraph [0145]).
Regarding claim 8, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino and further in view of Austrheim et al. disclose the robot of claim 7. Furthermore, Austrheim et al. disclose a robot wherein the first tool and the second tool are removably connectable to the picking manipulator (see “41” and “41’” in Figure 13 and paragraph [0120]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a robot wherein the first tool and the second tool are removably connectable to the picking manipulator, as disclosed by Austrheim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a vehicle assembly with eight vehicles and three picking arms (see paragraph [0145]) and a selectable holding mechanism (see paragraph [0120]).
Regarding claim 14, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino disclose the system of claim 11. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the storage structure further comprises a supply line provided with a plurality of valves, each of the plurality of valves being transitionable between a closed condition and an open condition. Austrheim et al. disclose a system wherein the storage structure further comprises a supply line provided with a plurality of valves, each of the plurality of valves being transitionable between a closed condition and an open condition (see “41”, “41’”, and “41”” in Figure 13 and paragraph [0119]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a system wherein the storage structure further comprises a supply line provided with a plurality of valves, each of the plurality of valves being transitionable between a closed condition and an open condition, as disclosed by Austrheim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a vehicle assembly with eight vehicles and three picking arms (see paragraph [0145]) which use suction force for holding (see paragraph [0119]).
Regarding claim 16, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino and further in view of Austrheim et al. disclose the system of claim 14. Furthermore, Austrheim et al. disclose a system wherein at least some of the plurality of valves is provided within the first set of parallel rails and/or the second set of parallel rails (see “41”, “41’”, and “41”” in Figure 13 and paragraph [0119]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a system wherein at least some of the plurality of valves is provided within the first set of parallel rails and/or the second set of parallel rails, as disclosed by Austrheim et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing a vehicle assembly with eight vehicles and three picking arms (see paragraph [0145]) which use suction force for holding (see paragraph [0119]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0073279) in view of Pistorino (USPGPUB 2016/0136816) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (USPGPUB 2018/0282066).
Regarding claim 9, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino disclose the robot of claim 1. However, they do not disclose a robot wherein the wheel assembly comprises a plurality of wheels pivotable between a first orientation in which each one of the plurality of wheels is aligned in the first horizontal direction and a second orientation in which each one of the plurality of wheels is aligned in the second horizontal direction. Wagner et al. disclose a robot wherein the wheel assembly comprises a plurality of wheels pivotable between a first orientation in which each one of the plurality of wheels is aligned in the first horizontal direction and a second orientation in which each one of the plurality of wheels is aligned in the second horizontal direction (see paragraph [0075]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the robot disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a robot wherein the wheel assembly comprises a plurality of wheels pivotable between a first orientation in which each one of the plurality of wheels is aligned in the first horizontal direction and a second orientation in which each one of the plurality of wheels is aligned in the second horizontal direction, as disclosed by Wagner et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing swivel mounted wheels (see paragraph [0075]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0073279) in view of Pistorino (USPGPUB 2016/0136816) in view of Austrheim et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0002077) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Lithgow (USPGPUB 2004/0161283).
Regarding claim 15, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino and further in view of Austrheim et al. disclose the system of claim 14. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the robot further comprises a coupler having a mating end in selective communication with the air tank, the mating end of the coupler being configured to access compressed air from the supply line to refill the air tank when engaged with one of the plurality of valves in the open condition. Lithgow discloses a system wherein the robot further comprises a coupler having a mating end in selective communication with the air tank, the mating end of the coupler being configured to access compressed air from the supply line to refill the air tank when engaged with one of the plurality of valves in the open condition (see paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a system wherein the robot further comprises a coupler having a mating end in selective communication with the air tank, the mating end of the coupler being configured to access compressed air from the supply line to refill the air tank when engaged with one of the plurality of valves in the open condition, as disclosed by Lithgow, with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing an air line for refilling the air tank (see paragraph [0021]).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Austrheim et al. (USPGPUB 2022/0073279) in view of Pistorino (USPGPUB 2016/0136816) as applied to claims 1, 3, 10-11, 13, and 19-20 above, and further in view of Augenbraun et al. (USP 11,407,118).
Regarding claim 17, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino disclose the system of claim 11. However, they do not disclose a system wherein the storage structure includes a swap port arranged to disengage a power source from the robot and engage another power source to the robot. Augenbraun et al. disclose a system wherein the storage structure includes a swap port arranged to disengage a power source from the robot and engage another power source to the robot (see column 6 lines 64-67 to column 7 lines 1-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a system wherein the storage structure includes a swap port arranged to disengage a power source from the robot and engage another power source to the robot, as disclosed by Augenbraun et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing means to swap a robot battery with a freshly charged battery (see column 7 lines 13-14).
Regarding claim 18, Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino and further in view of Augenbraun et al. disclose the system of claim 17. Furthermore, Augenbraun et al. disclose a system wherein the swap port is a battery swap port (see column 6 lines 64-67 to column 7 lines 1-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Austrheim et al. in view of Pistorino by including a system wherein the swap port is a battery swap port, as disclosed by Augenbraun et al., with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of providing means to swap a robot battery with a freshly charged battery (see column 7 lines 13-14).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
12/23/2025
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655