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 Amendment
The amendment filed 09/10/2025 has been entered. The claims have overcome all prior 112(b) rejections. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2025 with respect to the current prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually (page 10 of Remarks), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Specifically, in regards to the applicant’s argument that Jonas discloses a laser beam intended for measuring the position, not laser ablation. It is the position of the examiner that if the method for measuring the position of a laser was applied to the laser ablation taught in both Manfred and Ortiz, then the position of the laser ablation would be measured.
In response to applicant's argument that neither Ortiz nor Jonas mention the objective of the invention (which is to provide real-time monitoring of the machining process) (page 11 of Remarks), the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
The examiner agrees with the applicant’s argument that the amendment of the newly added limitations of claim 1 overcome all prior art rejections. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Calefati (US20110192825A1).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manfred (WO02055255A1) in view of Ortiz (US5045669), Jonas (WO2022029073A1), and Calefati (US20110192825A1).
Regarding claim 1, Manfred teaches a method for monitoring a laser machining process (paragraph [0012]) for engraving a texture or engraving a cavity on a workpiece by a laser machine tool comprising wherein a laser source (laser beam source - 3, Fig. 1) emits a pulsed laser beam on the surface of the workpiece to ablate the material of the workpiece ('laser beam drilling', paragraph [0002]), wherein the interaction of the laser beam and the material of the workpiece generates a plasma by (paragraph [0005]):
a. detecting the light emission of the generated plasma and generating a plasma signal by a sensing device (radiation detectors - 14, 15, Fig. 1), in particular a photodiode (paragraph [0023]), wherein an optical filter (bandpass filter -19, 20, Fig. 1) is provided in front of the photodiode to filter out the wavelength of the laser beam reflected from the surface of the workpiece (paragraphs [0021], [0022] disclose the bandpass filter is permeable to the plasma. Examiner is interpreting this to mean the filter is not permeable to the laser beam wavelength, thus filtering it out.);
b. receiving the generated plasma signal and the laser-beam-control signal by a signal- processing unit (signal evaluation device - 27, Fig. 1); and
c. determining a characteristic value from the pulses of the plasma signal by the signal- processing unit and mapping the determined characteristic value on the workpiece by combining the plasma signal and the laser-beam-control signal (Fig. 3 compares the signal from the laser beam and the plasma (characteristic value) to determine depth of the laser.
Manfred does not teach the laser source is controlled by a laser-beam-control signal to emit a pulsed laser beam, mapping the determined characteristic value to an ablation position, or d. using the characteristic value to evaluate the quality of the engraving of the workpiece..
However, in the same field of endeavor of monitoring laser materials processing, Ortiz teaches a laser-beam control signal (control signal, column 7, line 37) to control laser pulses.
Ortiz further teaches the plasma signal is an electrical signal (column 8, lines 9-13).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Manfred with the control signal and the electrical signal taught in Ortiz as a way to control the materials processing based on feedback from the monitoring method (Ortiz: abstract) and electrical signals are the usual signal detected by photodiodes (Ortiz: column 8, lines 10-12).
Manfred in view of Ortiz does not teach mapping the determined characteristic to an ablation position, or d. using the characteristic value to evaluate the quality of the engraving of the workpiece..
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing monitor methods, Jonas teaches a method of determining a position of a workpiece (paragraph [0001]) based on a characteristic value (measuring signal, paragraph [0016]).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of comparing the laser beam and plasma signal taught in Manfred with the method of determining an ablation position taught in Jonas as it allows for the immediate determination of position (Jonas: paragraph[0014]) which enables robust precision (Jonas: paragraph [0008]).
Jonas fails to teach d. using the characteristic value to evaluate the quality of the engraving of the workpiece.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser-machining processes, Calefati teaches a signal which is used to determine the quality of the machining process (engraving) (paragraph [0013]).
It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Manfred with the quality determination of Calefati as this method enables optimization and reduces waste (Calefati: paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 2, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 1, and Manfred further teaches the signal-processing unit is configured to determine a peak value of the amplitude of the pulse of the plasma signal as the characteristic value (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 1, and Manfred further teaches a threshold value is defined and the characteristic value is compared with the threshold value to determine an abnormality of the ablation, in particular abnormality is mapped to its position on the workpiece (paragraphs [0006], [0007] disclose methods where the laser drilling position is determined by comparing the signal to a threshold value).
Regarding claim 9, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 8, and Martan further teaches one of the following actions is taken when the abnormality is identified:
stopping the machining (paragraph [0006]).
Martan fails to teach the following actions:
b. adjusting the machining parameters; and
c. adjusting the mechanical machining conditions.
However, Ortiz teaches changing the workpiece parameters and conditions depending on the results of an undesirable output signal (column 9, lines 34-36; column 11, lines 12-17).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method taught in Manfred which stops the device when an abnormality is identified with the method of adjust parameters and conditions taught in Ortiz as it is desirable to change incorrect parameters/conditions of the workpiece before the operation continues (Ortiz: column 2, lines 59-60).
Regarding claim 10, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 1, but Manfred fails to teach the characteristic value is applied to conduct one or more of the following:
a. detecting a breakdown of a machine element;
b. detecting a bad positioning of the workpiece on the machine table;
c. detecting a bad blowing condition;
d. detecting the focal point of the laser beam along the focal axis (Z);
e. detecting a power shift during the laser processing;
f. detecting a bad workpiece geometry;
g. detecting an irregular machining;
h. detecting a focus shift caused by the optical elements;
i. detecting a change of material of the workpiece;
j. determining the parameters setting which gives best results based on iterative machining; and
k. calculating the volume of the ablated material.
However, Ortiz teaches a method that detects the breakdown of a machine element (column 12, lines 30-35).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the characteristic value method taught in Manfred with the element breakdown method taught in Ortiz as it facilitates consistent and high quality results by ensuring the machinery is in proper condition (Ortiz: column 4, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 15, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 1, but Manfred fails to teach the evaluation includes comparing the characteristic value with a threshold value to determine an abnormality of the ablation and mapping the abnormality to its corresponding position on the workpiece.
However, Ortiz teaches a method which includes comparing a characteristic value (signal from sensor - column 9, line 30) to a predetermined threshold value to determine deviations (column 9, lines 34-36).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Manfred with the threshold value method taught in Ortiz as this method allows for the real-time adjustment of the processing components (Ortiz: column 9, lines 35-36).
Ortiz does not disclose mapping the deviation to a corresponding position.
However, Jonas teaches a method where an abnormality (error) is mapped to a specific position (paragraph [0026]).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Manfred with the error position mapping taught in Jonas as it allows errors to be addressed before the laser material processing goes any further (Jonas: paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 16, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 1, but Manfred fails to teach the characteristic value is used as an indicator of machining quality and/or for diagnosing in real time abnormalities or instabilities of the ablation process.
However, Ortiz teaches a method which comparing a characteristic value (signal from sensor - column 9, line 30) to a predetermined threshold value to determine deviations (column 9, lines 34-36) and is done in real time (column 3, lines 36-37).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method of Manfred with the real time detection method taught in Ortiz as it allows for timely information for controlling materials processing operations (Ortiz: column 4: lines 5-8).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manfred, Ortiz, Jonas, and Calefati as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Martan (WO2022218451A1).
Regarding claim 3, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 2, and Manfred further teaches the signal-processing unit is configured to determine the peak values of the amplitudes of at least one pulse of the plasma signal (paragraph [0034]),
Manfred, Ortiz and Jonas fail to teach the characteristic value is the mean value of the peak amplitudes.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing monitor methods, Martan teach a characteristic value (characteristic number, page 3, line 5) which may be an average of a signal from the laser processing.
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the peak values of the plasma signal taught in Manfred with the averaging of signals taught in Martan as averaging is well-known way of smoothing data and removing unwanted noise (Martan: page 12, lines 31-32).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Martan and Jiri (CZ308932B6).
Regarding claim 3 Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 1, and Manfred further teaches the signal-processing unit is configured to determine the peak values of the amplitudes of the pulses of the plasma signal (paragraph [0034]) generated.
Manfred does not teach the ablation is conducted in a dash-by-dash manner and each dash represents a machining path, which is ablated by a plurality of laser pulses successively by setting the laser-beam-control signal continually to the high amplitude and the signal-processing unit is configured to determine a dash mean value as the characteristic value, wherein the dash mean value is defined by the mean value.
However, Martan teach a characteristic value (characteristic number, page 3, line 5) which may be an average of a signal from the laser processing.
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the peak values of the plasma signal taught in Manfred with the averaging of signals taught in Martan as averaging is well-known way of smoothing data and removing unwanted noise (Martan: page 12, lines 31-32).
Manfred as modified by Martan does not teach the ablation is conducted in a dash-by-dash manner and each dash represents a machining path, which is ablated by a plurality of laser pulses successively by setting the laser-beam-control signal continually to the high amplitude.
However, in the same field of endeavor of plasma etching methods, Jiri teaches a method which includes ablating dashes (linear rastors - 1, Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph [0050]), which can be ablated by a plurality of laser pulses (paragraph [0052]; Fig. 2) using a laser beam with a high amplitude (it is unclear what the high amplitude in the current application is referencing. Jiri teaches the pulsed laser having a high average power (paragraph [0090]). It is the interpretation of the examiner that this laser would have a "high amplitude".).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of degerming a mean value of the peak values of the plasma pulse amplitude taught in Manfred as modified by Martan with the method of ablating dashes to create a machining path taught in Jiri as this method of etching presents a solution to the heat accumulation and plasma shielding effects that are frequently seen with laser ablation (Jiri: paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 5, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 4, and Manfred further teaches the peak values of the amplitudes of the pulses of plasma signal generated during the ablation (paragraph [0034]).
Manfred does not teach the dash is divided into a plurality of sections and a section mean value is determined as the characteristic value for at least one section, wherein the section mean value is defined by the mean value.
However, Martan teach a characteristic value (characteristic number, page 3, line 5) which may be an average of a signal from the laser processing.
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the peak values of the plasma signal taught in Manfred with the averaging of signals taught in Martan as averaging is well-known way of smoothing data and removing unwanted noise (Martan: page 12, lines 31-32).
Manfred in view of Martan does not teach the dash is divided into a plurality of sections and a section mean value is determined as the characteristic value for at least one section.
However, Jiri teaches the dash (linear rastor - 1, Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph [0050]) is divided into a plurality of sections (spaced apart laser tracks - 2, Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph [0050]).
Jiri does not teach assigning a characteristic value for at least one section. However, Manfred in view of Martan teaches assigning a characteristic value defined by the mean value of the peak values of the amplitudes of the pulses of plasma signal generated during the ablation as explained above. It is the position of the examiner that a person having ordinary skill would be able to apply the known method taught in Manfred and Martan to the method of ablating in sections taught in Jiri as ablating in sections it presents a presents a solution to the heat accumulation and plasma shielding effects that are frequently seen with laser ablation (Jiri: paragraph [0056]).
It would be obvious for a person or ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Manfred in view of Martan with the method of ablating in sections taught in Jiri as it presents a presents a solution to the heat accumulation and plasma shielding effects that are frequently seen with laser ablation (Jiri: paragraph [0056]) while also saving computational resources (Jiri: paragraph [0058]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaplan (US5932119A).
Regarding claim 6, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 1, and Manfred further teaches the signal-processing unit (signal evaluation device - 27, Fig. 1),
However, Manfred, Ortiz and Jonas fail to teach a unit defined as a dash counter (40), which is configured to identify each dash based on the laser-beam-control signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor of methods of laser engraving, Kaplan teaches a unit (CCD imaging device - column 12, line 37) that reads each dash (inscription - column 12, line 37) and identifies it based on a control signal (stored image - column 12, line 53; 184, Fig. 12).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the signal-processing unit taught in Manfred with the unit to identify markings based on a control signal taught in Kaplan as a way to verify the accuracy (Kaplan: 'authenticate' - column 12, lines 61-63).
Regarding claim 7, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas and Calefati teach the method as explained above in claim 6, but fails to teach the dash counter is configured to count the dashes successively such that the determined characteristic value of the dash can be associated with the corresponding dash.
However, Kaplan teaches the dash counter unit (CCD imaging device - column 12, line 37) reads each marking successively (The examiner is interpreting 'successively' to mean 'in order'. A serial number, bar code, etc. (column 25, lines 65-67; column 26, lines 1-5) all must be read successively.) in order to associate each marking with a correct characterizing value (181-183-184, Fig. 12).
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the method taught in Manfred with the successive reading taught in Kaplan in order to accurately correlate the marking with its characteristic value associated with the position of each marking (Kaplan: column 26, lines 15-16).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manfred, Ortiz, and Jonas.
Regarding claim 11, Manfred teaches a system for monitoring the laser machining process (paragraph [0012]) for engraving a texture or engraving a cavity on a workpiece by a laser machine tool wherein a laser source is provided (laser beam source -3, Fig. 1) to emit a pulsed laser beam on the surface of the workpiece to ablate the material of the workpiece ('laser beam drilling', paragraph [0002]), wherein the interaction of the laser beam and the material of the workpiece generates a plasma (paragraph [0005]) by:
a. a sensing device configured to detect the light emission of the generated plasma and to generate a plasma signal (radiation detectors - 14, 15, Fig. 1), in particular the sensing device is a photodiode (paragraph [0023]);
b. an optical filter added on the sensing device to filter out the wavelength of the reflected laser beam (bandpass filter -19, 20, Fig. 1; paragraphs [0021], [0022] disclose the bandpass filter is permeable to the plasma. Examiner is interpreting this to mean the filter is not permeable to the laser beam wavelength, thus filtering it out.); and
c. a signal-processing unit configured to receive the plasma signal (signal evaluation device -27, Fig. 1) to determine a characteristic value from the pulses of the plasma signal and to map the determined characteristic value on the workpiece by combining the plasma signal and the laser-beam-control signal (Fig. 3 depicts comparing signals from the plasma and laser and determining the depth (position) of the laser etching).
Manfred down not teach the laser source is controlled by a laser-beam-control signal to emit a pulsed laser beam, or mapping the determined characteristic value to an ablation position.
However, Ortiz teaches a laser-beam control signal (control signal, column 7, line 37) to control laser pulses.
Ortiz further teaches the plasma signal is an electrical signal (column 8, lines 9-13).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Manfred with the control signal and the electrical signal taught in Ortiz as a way to control the materials processing based on feedback from the monitoring method (Ortiz: abstract) and electrical signals are the usual signal detected by photodiodes (Ortiz: column 8, lines 10-12).
Manfred in view of Ortiz does not teach mapping the determined characteristic to an ablation position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing monitor methods, Jonas teaches a method of determining a position of a workpiece (paragraph [0001]) based on a characteristic value (measuring signal, paragraph [0016]).
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of comparing the laser beam and plasma signal taught in Manfred with the method of determining an ablation position taught in Jonas as it allows for the immediate determination of position (Jonas: paragraph[0014]) which enables robust precision (Jonas: paragraph [0008]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manfred, Ortiz, and Jonas as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kaplan and Martan.
Regarding claim 12, Manfred in view of Ortiz, and Jonas teach d. the system for monitoring the laser machining process as explained above in claim 11, and Manfred further teaches a laser machine tool for engraving a texture or engraving a cavity on a workpiece comprising:
a. a laser head including a laser source (laser beam source - 3, Fig. 1; it is the position of the examiner that a laser beam source would include a laser head) for emitting a pulsed laser beam on the surface of the workpiece to ablate the material of the workpiece (paragraph [0002]); and
Manfred fails to teach:
b. a controller configured to generate a laser-beam-control signal having a high amplitude and a low amplitude and the laser beam is turned on when the control signal has a high amplitude and the laser beam is turned off when the control signal has a low amplitude;
c. a machining area where the workpiece is positioned.
However, Kaplan teaches a machining area (translatable stage - column 4, lines 41-42) where the workpiece is positioned.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the system taught in Manfred as modified by Kaplan with the machining area taught by Ortiz in order to allow for more precise positioning (Ortiz: column 4, line 42).
Manfred and Kaplan fails to teach b. a controller configured to generate a laser-beam-control signal having a high amplitude and a low amplitude and the laser beam is turned on when the control signal has a high amplitude and the laser beam is turned off when the control signal has a low amplitude.
However, Martan teaches a controller (control system -6, Fig. 1) which generates a laser-beam-control signal ('correction' - page 8, lines 1-6). Martan does not explicitly disclose whether the signal has a high or low amplitude, and turning the laser beam on/off depending on the amplitude. However, Martan does disclose correcting different laser parameters based on the signal (frequency of pulses, burst pulses, pulse length, pulses per burst, etc.). It is the position of the examiner that these parameters would reasonably include the laser beam "on" and "off" (emitting light and not emitting light).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the system taught in Manfred as modified by Ortiz with controller taught in Martan as it ensures the measured signal matches the operation (Martan: page 8, like 1).
Regarding claim 13, Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas, Kaplan and Martan teach the machine tool as explained above in claim 12, but Manfred fails to teach the signal-processing unit and the controller are integrated in one industrial computer.
However, Ortiz teaches a computer which controls the laser beams source (Fig. 1). Further, Ortiz also teach a signal-processing unit (pulse length comparator - 310, Fig. 7) which may be implemented in software (column 9, lines 53-56). The examiner is interpreting this to mean the signal-processing unit may also be part of the computer.
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Manfred with the computer taught in Ortiz as using a computer is a well-known and frequently implemented way of processing signals and controlling devices.
Regarding claim 14 Manfred in view of Ortiz, Jonas, Kaplan and Martan teach the machine tool as explained above in claim 12, but Manfred fails to teach the machine tool comprises a display and one or more of the following can be displayed on the display:
a. representation of the characteristic value of the laser/material interaction; and
b. it's position on the workpiece.
However, Kaplan teaches a workpiece (abstract) with a display ('computer monitor', column 5, line 65) which displays values that characterize the laser/material interaction (intensity, rate of pulses, etc. - column 2, lines 63-67) and the workpiece's position (column 2, lines 65-66).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the characteristic value taught in Manfred as modified by Ortiz with the display taught in Kaplan as it allows real time correction (Kaplan: column 17, lines 1-2) and verification (Kaplan: column 17, lines 24-25).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877