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 on 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Kato, Zimmerman, and Winter fails to teach the limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 because Winter’s cryogenic cooling system is directed to cooling engine bleed air in an aircraft engine context, which applicant contents is distinct from cooling an internal surface of a calibration shroud. However, this argument is not persuasive because the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 15 have been restructured in the present action to rely primarily on Kato’s own disclosure of a nitrogen-based heating/cooling system buried in the wall of both the blackbody target and the cylindrical cover member (shroud), which necessarily requires fluid delivery structure for introducing the cryogenic nitrogen and returning it, as taught at col. 3, lines 40 – 55. Zimmerman is relied upon only to the extent Kato does not explicitly detail the fluid delivery structure for the blackbody target. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments directed to Winter’s aircraft engine context do not address the primary basis of the rejection as maintained herein, and the rejections of claims 1, 9, and 15 are therefore maintained.
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, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US 5,602,389 – hereafter “Kato”) in view of Zimmerman (US 2018/0058921 – hereafter “Zimmerman”).
As per claim 1 Kato teaches the following:
An apparatus to calibrate a sensor (see col. 2, lines 30 – 35),
the apparatus comprising: a shroud defining a sensor aperture and a chamber (see col. 3, lines 20 – 35).
Kato further teaches that the blackbody target and the cylindrical cover member (shroud) each include a heating/cooling system (elements 17 and 18), each constituted by burying a liquid or gaseous nitrogen cooler and a heater into the wall of the blackbody and the cylindrical cover member, operated by a temperature controller to set the temperatures of both to predetermined values used in calibrating the sensor (see col. 3, lines 40 – 55). Liquid and gaseous nitrogen are cryogenic fluids. A nitrogen cooler embedded in the wall of the blackbody and the cylindrical cover member necessarily requires some structure for introducing the nitrogen and a path for its exhaust or return, as there is no other means by which a flowing cryogenic fluid could be delivered to and removed from an embedded cooler of the type Kato discloses. Kato thus teaches, or at minimum would have rendered obvious, a first fluid inlet fluidly coupled to the blackbody target to receive heat transfer fluid, and a second fluid inlet of the shroud to receive cryogenic fluid, together with the distribution structure necessary to deliver that fluid into the wall of the shroud to cool an internal surface thereof, as an ordinary and necessary implementation of the cooling system Kato already discloses.
Kato does not explicitly detail the structure of the first fluid inlet, however, Zimmerman teaches a cooling fluid supplied via a cooling interface to cooling units thermally coupled to blackbody calibration sources, to dissipate heat and maintain each source at a well-defined set temperature so that the corresponding radiation has well known spectral properties for accurate calibration (see para [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Kato in view of Zimmerman to include a first fluid inlet fluidly coupled to the blackbody target to receive heat transfer fluid, and a second fluid inlet of the shroud together with a manifold to receive cryogenic fluid and cool an internal surface of the shroud, in order to provide independent, precise temperature control of both the blackbody target and the cylindrical cover member, since both directly affect the infrared radiation incident upon the sensor during calibration (see Kato col. 3, lines 60 – 67; col. 4, lines 1 – 12), thereby improving the stability and accuracy of the calibration process as a whole, consistent with Kato’s stated goal of achieving sensor calibration with high reliability and high precision (see Kato col. 4, lines 35 – 45).
As per claim 9 Kato teaches the following:
A system comprising: a sensor testing target including: a shroud defining a sensor aperture and a chamber, and a blackbody target disposed within the chamber (see col. 3, lines 20 – 35).
Kato further teaches that the blackbody target and the cylindrical cover member (shroud) each include a heating/cooling system (elements 17 and 18), each constituted by burying a liquid or gaseous nitrogen cooler and a heater into the wall of the blackbody and the cylindrical cover member, operated by a temperature controller to set the temperatures of both to predetermined values used in calibrating the sensor (see col. 3, lines 40 – 55). Liquid and gaseous nitrogen are cryogenic fluids. A nitrogen cooler embedded in the wall of the blackbody and the cylindrical cover member necessarily requires some structure for introducing the nitrogen and a path for its exhaust or return, as there is no other means by which a flowing cryogenic fluid could be delivered to and removed from an embedded cooler of the type Kato discloses. Kato thus teaches, or at minimum would have rendered obvious, a first fluid inlet fluidly coupled to the blackbody target to receive heat transfer fluid, and a second fluid inlet of the shroud to receive cryogenic fluid, together with the distribution structure necessary to deliver that fluid into the wall of the shroud to cool an internal surface thereof, as an ordinary and necessary implementation of the cooling system Kato already discloses. Kato does not explicitly detail the structure of the cryogenic fluid source or chiller; Zimmerman teaches supplying cooling fluid via cooling units mounted proximate blackbody calibration sources to provide a cold thermal interface and dissipate heat generated by the blackbody calibration sources (see para [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Kato in view of Zimmerman to include a cryogenic fluid source and a chiller fluidly coupled, respectively, to a fluid inlet of the shroud for cooling an internal surface of the chamber and to an internal channel of the blackbody target for receiving heat transfer fluid, because Kato’s own disclosure establishes that both the temperature of the blackbody target and the temperature of the cylindrical cover member’s inner surface directly affect the infrared radiation incident upon the sensor during calibration (see Kato col. 3, lines 60 – 67; col. 4, lines 1 – 12), such that providing each structure with its own dedicated, conventionally-implemented fluid delivery path would have provided independent, precise temperature control of both elements, thereby improving the stability and accuracy of the calibration process as a whole, consistent with Kato’s stated goal of achieving sensor calibration with high reliability and high precision (see Kato col. 4, lines 35 – 45).
As per claim 15 Kato teaches the following:
A method of calibrating a sensor, the method comprising:
aligning a shroud to the sensor to cause a blackbody target of the shroud to face the sensor, the shroud defining a sensor aperture and a chamber with the blackbody target disposed therein (see col. 3, lines 20 – 35).
Kato further teaches that the blackbody target and the cylindrical cover member (shroud) each include a heating/cooling system (elements 17 and 18), each constituted by burying a liquid or gaseous nitrogen cooler and a heater into the wall of the blackbody and the cylindrical cover member, operated by a temperature controller to set the temperatures of both to predetermined values used in calibrating the sensor (see col. 3, lines 40 – 55). Liquid and gaseous nitrogen are cryogenic fluids. A nitrogen cooler embedded in the wall of the cylindrical cover member necessarily requires a fluid inlet through which the nitrogen is introduced to provide cryogenic fluid to an inner surface of the shroud, as there is no other means by which a flowing cryogenic fluid could be delivered to an embedded cooler of the type Kato discloses.
Kato does not explicitly disclose providing heat transfer fluid to the blackbody target with the specificity required by the claim, however, Zimmerman teaches providing cryogenic cooling fluid to a blackbody calibration source via a cooling interface to thermally manage the blackbody calibration source (see para [0030] – [0031]) and performing calibration measurements using the sensor (see para [0039] – [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Kato in view of Zimmerman to provide cryogenic fluid to an inner surface of the shroud and heat transfer fluid to the blackbody target, because Kato’s own disclosure establishes that both the temperature of the blackbody target and the temperature of the cylindrical cover member’s inner surface directly affect the infrared radiation incident upon the sensor during calibration (see Kato col. 3, lines 60 – 67; col. 4, lines 1 – 12), such that providing each structure with its own dedicated, conventionally implemented fluid delivery path would have provided independent, precise temperature control of both elements, thereby improving the stability and accuracy of the calibration process as a whole, consistent with Kato’s stated goal of achieving sensor calibration with high reliability and high precision (see Kato col. 3, lines 60 – 67; col. 4, lines 1 – 12).
Claims 3, 11, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Winter (US 11,299,279 – hereafter “Winter”).
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The apparatus as defined in claim 2, wherein the first fluid inlet is to be fluidly coupled to a liquid chiller, and wherein the second fluid inlet is fluidly coupled to a cryogenic fluid source.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach the first inlet being fluidly coupled to a liquid chiller, and the second fluid inlet being fluidly coupled to a cryogenic fluid source.
However, Winter teaches fluid coupling of a cryogenic cooling system to a cryogenic working fluid through a plumbing system (see col. 19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Winter by fluidly coupling the second fluid inlet to a cryogenic fluid source as taught by Winter, while maintaining the first fluid inlet coupled to a liquid chiller, to provide selectable cooling using both chilled liquid and cryogenic fluid sources.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites “The system as defined in claim 9, wherein the cryogenic fluid source is to provide the cryogenic fluid to the chiller.” Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach the cryogenic fluid source providing the cryogenic fluid to the chiller.
However, Winter teaches a cryogenic cooling system including a cryogenic cooler operable to chill engine bleed air and produce a working fluid for distribution through a plumbing system (see col. 19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Winter by providing a cryogenic fluid source configured to supply cryogenic fluid to a chiller, as taught by Winter, in order to enable cryogenic cooling of the working fluid.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “The system as defined in claim 9, wherein the heat transfer fluid includes cryogenic fluid.” Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach a heat transfer fluid includes cryogenic fluid.
However, Winter teaches a working fluid that is cryogenic fluid, including liquid air or chilled working fluid produced by a cryogenic cooling system (see col. 19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Winter by using cryogenic fluid as the heat transfer fluid, as taught by Winter, to improve cooling efficiency and achieve lower operating temperatures.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “The method as defined in claim 15, wherein heat transfer fluid is provided from a chiller to the blackbody target.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach providing heat transfer fluid from a chiller to the blackbody target.
However, Winter teaches a cryogenic cooling system including a cryogenic cooler and plumbing system for delivering chilled working fluid to components (see col. 19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Winter by providing heat transfer fluid from a chiller to the blackbody target using the cryogenic cooling and fluid delivery techniques taught by Winter, to improve cooling efficiency and achieve lower operating temperatures.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites “The method as defined in claim 16, further including providing cryogenic fluid to the chiller.” Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach providing cryogenic fluid to the chiller.
However, Winter teaches a cryogenic cooling system including a cryogenic cooler operable to chill engine bleed air and produce a working fluid for distribution through a plumbing system (see col. 19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Winter by providing cryogenic fluid to the chiller using the cryogenic cooling techniques taught by Winter, in order to enable lower temperature operation and improved cooling performance.
Claims 4, 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Swanger et al. (US 2019/0056064 – hereafter “Swanger”).
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “The apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the blackbody target includes nested spiral liquid loops for the heat transfer fluid to flow therethrough.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach a blackbody target that includes nested spiral liquid loops for the heat transfer fluid to flow therethrough.
However, Swanger teaches nested spiral liquid flow channels formed as nested spiral coils through which a fluid flows (see para [0063] – [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Swanger by incorporating nested spiral liquid loops for the heat transfer fluid as taught by Swanger in order to improve heat transfer efficiency and provide uniform thermal distribution.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “The system as defined in claim 9, further including at least one temperature sensor mounted to one or more of the shroud, or the blackbody target.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach at least one temperature sensor mounted to one or more of the shroud or the blackbody target.
However, Swanger teaches mounting temperature sensors, including thermocouples, on the structure to measure temperature (see para [0059]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Swanger by mounting at least one temperature sensor on the shroud or the blackbody target as taught by Swanger in order to monitor and control temperature during operation.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “The apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the shroud includes nested spiral loops to receive the cryogenic fluid.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach a shroud that includes nested spiral loops to receive the cryogenic fluid.
However, Swanger teaches nested spiral liquid flow channels formed as nested spiral coils through which fluid flows (see para [0063] – [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Swanger by incorporating nested spiral loops in the shroud to receive the cryogenic fluid, as taught by Swanger, in order to improve heat transfer efficiency and provide uniform thermal distribution across the internal surface of the shroud.
Claims 6 – 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0023866– hereafter “Chen”).
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “The apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the shroud has a converging shape with the sensor aperture at or proximate an apex of the shroud.
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach the shroud has a converging shape with the sensor aperture at or proximate an apex of the shroud.
However, Chen teaches a converging structure including a mirror cone having an opening disposed at an apex and configured to surround an infrared-transparent window (see para [0006], [0011], [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Chen by configuring the shroud with a converging shape terminating at a sensor aperture as taught by Chen in order to control incident radiation and improve sensor performance.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “The apparatus as defined in claim 6, wherein the sensor aperture is to receive at least a portion of the sensor.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach a sensor aperture configured to receive at least a portion of the sensor.
However, Chen teaches an aperture configured to receive and interface with an infrared-transparent window positioned to support sensing through the opening (see para [0006], [0011], [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Chen by configuring the sensor aperture to receive at least a portion of the sensor as taught by Chen in order to enable efficient signal transmission through the aperture.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “The apparatus as defined in claim 6, wherein the shroud includes at least one of insulative material or an insulative layer.
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach a shroud including at least one of insulative material or an insulative layer.
However, Chen teaches a thermally insulated housing including hollow walls and a thermally insulated vacuum chamber (see para [0006], [0011], [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Chen by forming the shroud with insulative material or an insulative layer as taught by Chen in order to reduce thermal losses and improve thermal stability.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “The apparatus as defined in claim 1, wherein the shroud exhibits a converging shape or a cone shape.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach a shroud that exhibits a converging shape or a cone shape.
However, Chen teaches a converging a structure including a mirror cone having an opening disposed at an apex and configured to surround an infrared-transparent window (see para [0006], [0011], [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Chen by configuring the shroud with a converging or cone shape, as taught by Chen, in order to direct and concentrate infrared radiation toward the sensor aperture and improve calibration accuracy.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Di Federico et al. (US 2015/0109509 A1– hereafter “Di Federico”).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “The system as defined in claim 9, further including a support pole to mount the sensor testing target.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach a support pole to mount the sensor testing target.
However, Di Federico teaches a sensor pole to which an optical target is attached to a sensor pole, which directly corresponds to mounting a sensor testing target (see para [0041]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Di Federico by mounting the sensor testing target on a support pole as taught by Di Federico in order to provide stable positioning and alignment of the testing target relative to the sensor.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Wu et al. (US 2003/0071205 – hereafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “The system as defined in claim 9, wherein the shroud includes an indexing surface at a converging portion of the shroud, the indexing surface to contact a thermal sensor to be calibrated.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach a shroud that includes an indexing surface at a converging portion of the shroud, the indexing surface to contact a thermal sensor to be calibrated.
However, Wu teaches a housing having an indexing surface that contacts and aligns a sensor assembly, wherein an index corner cooperates with a positioning surface on an interior, converging portion of the housing and moves into abutting engagement to accurately position the assembly (see para [0085] – [0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Wu to include an indexing surface at a converging portion of the shroud for contacting and accurately positioning a thermal sensor, as taught by Wu, in order to ensure repeatable alignment and positioning during calibration.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “The method as defined in claim 15, wherein the shroud is aligned to the sensor by pressing an indexing surface of the shroud against a surface laterally surrounding the sensor.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman fails to teach a shroud that is aligned to the sensor by pressing an indexing surface of the shroud against a surface laterally surrounding the sensor.
However, Wu teaches aligning a housing to a sensor by pressing an indexing surface into abutting engagement with an interior surface laterally surrounding the sensor to accurately position the housing relative to the sensor (see para [0085] – [0086]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Wu to align the shroud to the sensor by pressing an indexing surface against a surface laterally surrounding the sensor, as taught by Wu, to achieve accurate and repeatable sensor alignment.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Swanger in further view of Yu et al. (Z. Yu, S. Lincheng, Z. Dianle, Z. Daibing and Y. Chengping, "Camera Calibration of Thermal-Infrared Stereo Vision System," 2013 Fourth International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Engineering Applications, Zhangjiajie, China, 2013, pp. 197-201 – hereafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “The apparatus as defined in claim 4, wherein the blackbody target includes a concentric pattern of rings on a surface to face the sensor.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Swanger fails to teach a blackbody target that includes a concentric pattern of rings on a surface to face the sensor.
However, Yu teaches the concentric black and white circles can also be the calibration markers for visible-spectrum cameras (see pg. 199, left column, para starting under Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman, in further view of Swanger, and in further view of Yu by providing the blackbody target with a concentric pattern of rings on a surface to face the sensor, as concentric circular calibration patterns were known to provide clear, high-contrast calibration markers suitable for sensor calibration.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Winter in further view of Swanger.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “The method as defined in claim 16, wherein the heat transfer fluid is provided to double reversing nested spiral loops of the blackbody target.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Winter fails to teach providing heat transfer fluid to double reversing nested spiral loops of the blackbody target.
However, Swanger teaches nested spiral fluid delivery coils including spiral fluid flow channels configured to route fluid through nested spiral coil structures (see para [0063] – [0065]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman, in further view of Winter, and in further view of Swanger by providing heat transfer fluid to nested spiral loops as taught by Swanger in order to improve heat transfer uniformity and thermal control of the blackbody target.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “The method as defined in claim 16, further including measuring, via at least one thermocouple, temperatures of the shroud and the blackbody target.”
Kato in view of Zimmerman in further view of Winter fails to teach measuring, via at least one thermocouple, temperatures of the shroud and the blackbody target.
However, Swanger teaches measuring temperatures using multiple thermocouples during cryogenic operation (see para [0068]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to further modify Kato in view of Zimmerman and Winter in further view of Swanger by measuring temperatures using one or more thermocouples as taught by Swanger in order to monitor thermal performance during cryogenic operation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights