DETAILED ACTION
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 Remarks
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims provided in the previous Office Action dated 01/29/2026 (hereinafter referred to as the Previous Office Action) are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The rejections to the claims other than 1, 9, and 17 provided in the previous Office Action are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments, and Claims 1, 9, and 17 are withdrawn partially in light of Applicant’s arguments.
With respect to Claims 1, 9, and 17, wherein the claims recite the limitation “receiving … an updated acceleration value from the inertial measurement unit … at each tick” and “controlling … at each tick”, Applicant’s arguments are only partially persuasive. Mere proximity and indication of a same action/verb without the same timing being specified is insufficient to amount to explicit disclosure. However, Examiner believes that this feature is well-known and understood to one of ordinary skill in the art such that in the context of one item being of such timing that all associated items are likewise understood as such. In other words, it well known and understood to one of ordinary skill in the art that real-time control (which itself is commonplace) involves all operations and/or sensor measurements occurring within a given so-called “tick”, and furthermore a “tick” is often understood as whatever the slowest frequency component or item is as a control “cycle” may not be considered as completed until all items involved are updated/refreshed. Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments no longer appear to argue against one having ordinary skill in the art understanding these features as common to real-time control systems as presently broadly claimed. Relatedly, any such arguments would appear to argue against support for these limitations in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument(s).
Furthermore, the arguments are considered unpersuasive. In the interest of compact prosecution, see the following:
The rejections are generally changed from being with respect to Garcia to Koenke which was identified in the Conclusion section of the previous Office Action as disclosing “many if not all of the limitations presently claimed”. Examiner believes Garcia likely discloses all of the limitations of the present claims, however in light of Applicant’s amendments more specifically outlining the mathematical operations involved, Koenke is relied upon as it is much more explicit and clearer than attempting to break down the wrench equations and other statements of Garcia.
Applicant’s argument starting on Page 9 that “Applicant respectfully submits that the cited portion of Garcia does not disclose or suggest "generating” is wholly unclear. Applicant states that “instead, the cited portion of Garcia recites …” wherein Applicant proceeds to recite a portion of Garcia never relied upon in the rejection(s). Furthermore, the recited section discloses alternatives to the disclosed estimator and thus have limited bearing on the disclosure relied upon related to the estimator. Furthermore, Applicant does not elaborate or otherwise explain their reasoning or position for why Garcia in general, or this portion in general, is even relevant to the argument being made. If anything, this portion of Garcia appears to disclose the method claimed and recite two references ([14]] and [17]) which both disclose the features of the independent claims, compares it to the main disclosed estimator method, and provides at least some means for overcoming perceived drawbacks to the alternative method.
Applicant follows this argument with another argument exhibiting similar issues. Applicant cites portions of Garcia which again do not appear to have been relied upon and appears to believe that the argument being made by doing so is self-evident. No reasoning, explanation, logic, or other illuminating statements are provided and the argument is not self-evident. Thus, Examiner must guess at Applicant’s intended argument(s).
While Examiner may have withdrawn the 112 rejection(s) with respect to language relating to “damping configuration”, effectively none of the features related to these limitations present in the specification are recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes that Applicant argues “actively “causing …” ”. The term “actively” is not present in the claims.
Examiner notes that related to the above, Applicant arguments with respect to Examiner’s comments in previous Office Actions noting the breadth of the terms are unpersuasive. Note that Applicant resorts to reference to the specification (“is well described in the specification”), wherein the specification does not provide a special definition of the terms involved such that the plain meaning is limited thereto. MPEP 2111.04 relates. If Applicant believes features of the specification related to these terms are relevant to patentability, Applicant is encouraged to amend the claims themselves such that these terms are described, defined, or similar with these features.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 – 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 5 and 20, the claims each depend from a cancelled claim (Claims 4 and 19 respectively). It is unclear which claim they depend from now. In light of the Claims filed 11/25/2025, these claims are instead interpreted as depending from Claims 3 and 18 respectively.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim effectively recites broader limitations of those recited in Claim 1. It is wholly unclear what is further narrowed, if anything, from Claim 1. They appear to be braoder limitations of “wherein adjusting the updated force value using the updated acceleration value comprises: determining a dynamic force by multiplying (i) a mass of the post-sensor inertia, and (ii) the updated acceleration value; and subtracting the dynamic force from the updated force value”. Furthermore, Claim 22 was cancelled. Examiner believes that Claim 22 was cancelled as the features of now cancelled Claim 22 were more narrowly claimed in Claim 17. Therefore, as Claim 21 and 22 were equivalent claims, Claim 22 is interpreted as being cancelled. Furthermore, Claim 22 appears disclosed by any prior art disclosing the identified limitations above of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim depends from claim(s) rejected above and inherit the deficiencies of said claim(s) as described above. Therefore, Claim 6 is rejected under the same logic presented above.
Claim Interpretation
General Notes:
Applicant makes frequent use of the preposition “to”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the word is of indicating a purpose, intention, tendency, or result. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of limitations reciting “to”, depending on claim construction, is inclusive of those which render the limitations as non-positively recited limitations. For example, Claim 1 recites “to measure forces on an end effector of the robot” and “to account for post-sensor inertia of an object at the end effector in the first coordinate space”. Neither of these limitations are positively recited limitations. The “to” merely indicates an intended purpose, result, or similar of the preceding limitations. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will attempt to address these limitations as if they were positively recited limitations where readily apparent in the prior art relied upon in the rejections below.
Furthermore, and in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner notes that if interpreted as positively recited limitations, the limitations would appear to “merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention” and therefore “the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear”. MPEP 2173.05(g) relates.
The limitation “a last moveable component of the robot nearest to the end effector” found in at least Claims 2, 10, and 18 means “a moveable component of the robot before the end effector”, or “the same moveable component as the end effector” (wherein the end effector and moveable component may be the same component). See Page 12 of Applicant’s Remarks dated 11/25/2025.
The definition of the term inertia is mass in cases of linear (translational) motion and the moment of inertia or mass moment of inertia in cases of rotational motion. Applicant only discloses handling inertia as mass. Rotational motion cases involving inertia defined using units other than mass are not discussed or otherwise disclosed in Applicant’s originally filed application. See for example Equation (3) and the related disclosure “the mass of the post-sensor inertia” (emphasis added) on Page 8 explicitly discloses using mass for the post-sensor inertia. See also “the mass of the post-sensor inertia multiplied by the updated acceleration value”.
Therefore, the term “inertia”, particularly as found in the phrase “post-sensor inertia” has been interpreted as meaning “mass”, and is exclusive of the meaning moment of inertia or similar having unit [kg⋅m2] or similar.
35 U.S.C. 112(f)
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:
Interaction control system first recited in Claim 1
Damping configuration (including all such numerically identified) first recited in Claim 4
Storage devices first recited in Claim 9
Data processing apparatus first recited in Claim 17
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 5– 6, 9 – 11, 13 – 14, 17 – 18, and 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koenke (US 20230049155 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Koenke teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, in an interaction control system comprising a robot having a plurality of moveable components (robot 10) and a force-torque sensor mounted on a first moveable component of the one or more movable components (F/T sensor 12) to (Indication of intent or purpose of preceding and not a positively recited limitation. See Claim Interpretation notes above) measure forces on an end effector of the robot (See at least [0021] “Attached to the other side of the F/T sensor 12 is an end effector tool 20 … As the tool 20 assumes different orientations, the F/T sensor experiences differing components of the weight of the tool 20 along the axes of the sensor 12. Additionally, the robot 10 movement induces inertial forces and/or torques on the F/T sensor 12. These effects are indistinguishable, at the transducer level, from the contact forces and torques between the tool 20 and workpiece, which the F/T sensor 12 is supposed to measure), an updated (Term lacks distinction at present, not claimed as what it is updated from) force value from the force-torque sensor representing a force on the end effector (See again [0021], e.g. “contact forces and torques … which the F/T sensor 12 is supposed to measure”) at each tick of a real-time control cycle (More than one tick not required. The term “tick” is not defined. Thus, the only significantly limiting portion appears to be of “real-time”. See at least [0031] “Active Gravitational Compensation … occurs continuously”. In the interest of compact prosecution, see also [0087] “The F/T sensor 12 transducers are analog devices that continuously output signals in response to mechanical stresses. The rate at which those signals are resolved into forces and torques is set by the user and may vary according to the needs of a particular robotic operation”. This discussion is considered to cover all following limitation of real-time operation including control and data acquisition);
receiving, by the interaction control system, an updated acceleration value (Term lacks distinction at present, not claimed as what it is updated from) from an inertial measurement unit (See at least [0009] “the acceleration vector obtained from the IMU”) mounted on the first moveable component of the robot (See at least [0023] “F/T sensor 12—either stand-alone, with integrated inertial measurement unit (IMU)” and Figure 3) at each tick of the real-time control cycle (See again above);
adjusting, at each respective tick (See again above), the updated force value received from the force-torque sensor at the respective tick (See again above) using the updated acceleration value received from the inertial measurement unit (The nature of this claim is further narrowed and thus covered later under the wherein clause. Therefore, see below) at the respective tick of the real-time control cycle (See again above) to (Indication of intent or purpose of preceding and not a positively recited limitation. See Claim Interpretation notes above) account for post-sensor inertia of an object at the end effector (See at least [0023] “According to embodiments of the present invention, one or both of gravitational and inertial effects are dynamically compensated by an F/T sensor 12”), wherein adjusting the updated force value using the updated acceleration value comprises:
determining a dynamic force by multiplying (i) a mass of the post-sensor inertia, and (ii) the updated acceleration value (See at least Equations 14 and 15 as well as [0056] which defines the mass term as “the mass of the tool 20” and the acceleration term as “the linear acceleration of the F/T sensor body CF. An onboard IMU outputs an acceleration value, which comprises both gravitational acceleration and linear acceleration”); and
subtracting the dynamic force from the updated force value (See at least Equations 3, 17, and 29);
generating, by the interaction control system, an updated command based on the updated force value adjusted to account for the post-sensor inertia of the object at the end effector (See at least [0082] “One or more processors and appropriate software within the electronics module 22 resolve the transducer signals into F/T measurements and calculate and apply gravitational and optionally inertial compensation terms. The compensated F/T data, which represents only {right arrow over (F)}.sub.contact, is fed back to the robot 10 for use in force control operations”), wherein the updated command causes the robot to operate with a damping configuration that is less conservative than a damping configuration used when the inertial measurement unit is not activated (See at least [0030] “According to one embodiment, the F/T sensor 12 may be equipped or configured to perform any of three levels of compensation” wherein [0030] – [0032] discuss the three levels of compensation. This limitation is especially broad. Applicant does not define “damping configuration” in the claim. The BRI of the term includes these compensations which dampen these terms. Applicant does not define “conservative” within the claim. The BRI of a relativity to the term, i.e. “less”, thus merely requires levels. Actual use or operation at a different damping configuration is not required by the claim. The timing of the claim is also particularly broad, and does not require this condition under all circumstances. For example, Applicant does not claim how the “less conservative damping configuration” is achieved, or even in particular what that means, and only appears to claim the “configurations” with respect to the effect achieved (see “causes”). See how vagely this may be interpreted even under Applicant’s disclosure, “This system 100 can use the adjusted interaction force 101b value to operate the robot 150 with less conservative damping values whenever the IMU 110 is activated” (Page 8, Lines 28 – 31 of the originally filed specification)); and
controlling, by the interaction control system at each tick of the real-time control cycle, the robot using the updated command (See again [0082]).
Regarding Claim 2, Koenke teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the post force-torque sensor and the inertial measurement unit are both mounted on a last moveable component of the robot nearest to the end effector (See at least Figure 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Examiner notes that wherein the limitation relates to the “post-sensor inertia”, which is not presently positively recited, the following limitation is not positively recited and does not need to be addressed by the prior art. Furthermore, and alternatively, Examiner notes that robots are disclosed generally but may operate under an infinite number of circumstances. Applicant’s specification provides no basis for the particular value provided below such that it is critical to the invention and appears to be more than an arbitrary matter of design choice or circumstances.
The method of claim 2, wherein the post-sensor inertia is generated by a payload having a mass greater than 100 kg.
Regarding Claim 5, Koenke teaches:
The method of claim 4, wherein adjusting the updated force value using the updated acceleration value further comprises correcting accelerations from motion of the robot itself (See various “acceleration” values all related to a robot. Examiner furthermore notes that “from motion of the robot itself” is particularly broad. The claim does not define what is considered as “from motion of the robot”. The disclosure is not for a robot which never moves and therefore all accelerations should be “from motion of the robot itself”. For a particular robotic operation example, see [0090] “The robotic operation depicted was sanding the outer surface of a pipe”).
Regarding Claim 6, Koenke teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein adjusting the updated force value using the updated acceleration value further comprises correcting for unmodeled structural dynamics (See at [0021] “As the tool 20 assumes different orientations, the F/T sensor experiences differing components of the weight of the tool 20 along the axes of the sensor 12. Additionally, the robot 10 movement induces inertial forces and/or torques on the F/T sensor 12. These effects are indistinguishable, at the transducer level, from the contact forces and torques between the tool 20 and workpiece, which the F/T sensor 12 is supposed to measure”. Examiner notes that the claim does not define the noun phrase “unmodeled structural dynamics”).
Regarding Claims 9 – 11, 13 – 14, 17 – 18, and 20 – 21, the claims are directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 with respect to application of prior art, except for the recitation of generic computer components which are still taught by the prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 6 above. The additional or different limitations found within the claims are of “one or more computers”, “instructions”, “operations”, and “a computer storage medium encoded with a computer program” and “data processing apparatus”. See at least [0093] of Koenke as needed for disclosure which teaches these limitations.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenke further in view of Garcia et al. (García, Javier Gámez, et al. "Sensor fusion for compliant robot motion control." IEEE Transactions on Robotics 24.2 (2008): 430-441.) which teaches many or all of the limitations of the claims. See previous Office Actions.
Regarding Claim 8, Koenke teaches:
The method of claim 7,
Koenke does not explcitly disclose, but Garcia explicitly discloses:
wherein the interaction control system is an admittance control system or an impedance control system (See at least Section I. “To validate the proposed observer, it has been applied to an impedance control loop in a Stäubli 6-DOF industrial robotic manipulator”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize impedance control as taught by Garcia in Koenke with a reasonable expectation of success. The use of impedance control would improve contact related control, such as assembly and/or collaborative robotic tasks.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is directed to effectively the same subject matter as Claim 8 with respect to application of prior art, except for the recitation of generic computer components which are still taught by the prior art. The claims are therefore rejected under the same logic as Claims 8 above. The additional or different limitations found within the claims are of “one or more computers”, “instructions”, “operations”, and “a computer storage medium encoded with a computer program” and “data processing apparatus”. See at least [0093] of Koenke as needed for disclosure which teaches these limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colbrunn et al. (US 20210229279 A1) which discloses hybrid control of a robot including gravity compensation and mass/inertia compensation.
Examiner notes that Li et al. (Li, Shuhan, and Jinli Xu. "Multi-axis force/torque sensor technologies: design principles and robotic force control applications: A review." IEEE Sensors Journal (2024)), while not qualifying as prior art, is a review of the general topic disclosed and claimed by Applicant, and the majority of the 120 references reviewed and the references of said reviewed references qualify as prior art. Therefore Li et al., rather than a large body of the cited references, has been included.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C GAMMON whose telephone number is (571)272-4919. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10:00 - 6:00.
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, ADAM MOTT can be reached on (571) 270-5376. 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 C GAMMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights