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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 with respect Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e feed amount of the two types of straightening rollers should be set, strong strain, work hardening, or target strain) are not 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).
The Applicant argued that Hiroaki does not disclose wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side; and wherein a minimum push-in amount in the first roller group is at least 10 times a maximum push-in amount in the second roller group.
In response to this argument, Hiroaki discloses wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side (fig.4: the upstream side at element (16)) to a downstream side (fig.4: the downstream side at element (18)) (paragraphs 0008 and 0030) in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008);
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a push-in amount to be as desired depending on the amount of deformation to be corrected, including wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side; and wherein a minimum push-in amount in the first roller group is at least 10 times a maximum push-in amount in the second roller group, in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008).
Or,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hiroaki to have wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side; and wherein a minimum push-in amount in the first roller group is at least 10 times a maximum push-in amount in the second roller group in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008), since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that Zheyang does not disclose the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from the upstream side to the downstream side, and a minimum push-in amount in the first step is at least 10 times as large as a maximum push-in amount in the second step.
In response to this argument, Zheyang discloses a push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side to a downstream side of the roller group (fig.1: (14a), paragraphs 001 and 0019-20);
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a push-in amount to be as desired depending on the amount of distortion to be corrected, including wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side; and a minimum push-in amount in the first step is at least 10 times as large as a maximum push-in amount in the second step in order to achieved a high straightness (Zheyang: paragraphs 0015-0016).
Or,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Zheyang to have wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side; and a minimum push-in amount in the first step is at least 10 times as large as a maximum push-in amount in the second step in order to achieved a high straightness (Zheyang: paragraphs 0015-0016), since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
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, 5 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki (JP2007229745A attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroaki discloses a method for shaping a wire material that moves from an upstream side to a downstream side (fig.4, paragraphs 001 and 0030), the method comprising:
a first step of feeding (fig.4: the wire (W) is feeding to the device (16) from the right side) the wire material while pressing the wire material by a first roller group (fig.4: (16)) including a plurality of rollers (fig.4: (51-52)) driven by a motor (Hiroaki does not explicitly disclose a motor, however, the device of the Hiroaki must have a motor in order to operate the rollers); and
a second step of feeding the wire material while pressing the wire material by a second roller group (fig.4: (17)) including a plurality of rotatably supported rollers (fig.4: (45-55)),
wherein the first step is provided upstream of the second step (fig.4), and
a push-in amount that is a difference between an outer dimension of the wire material and a gap between rollers of the plurality of rollers of the first roller group and the plurality of rotatably supported rollers of the second roller group, through which the wire material passes is larger in the first step than in the second step (paragraph 0030).
Hiroaki does not disclose in the second step the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from the upstream side to the downstream side, and a minimum push-in amount in the first step is at least 10 times as large as a maximum push-in amount in the second step.
However, Hiroaki discloses wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side (fig.4: the upstream side at element (16)) to a downstream side (fig.4: the downstream side at element (18)) (paragraphs 0008 and 0030) in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008);
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a push-in amount to be as desired depending on the amount of deformation to be corrected, including in the second step the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from the upstream side to the downstream side, and a minimum push-in amount in the first step is at least 10 times as large as a maximum push-in amount in the second step, in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008).
Or,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hiroaki to have in the second step the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from the upstream side to the downstream side, and a minimum push-in amount in the first step is at least 10 times as large as a maximum push-in amount in the second step in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008), since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Hiroaki discloses wherein in the first step, the push-in amount sequentially decreases from the upstream side to the downstream side (paragraphs 0008 and 0030: the bend is decrees direction of the travel of the wire).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroaki discloses a third step of feeding the wire material by a third roller group (fig.4: (18)) including a plurality of rotatably supported rollers (fig.4: (57-58)), wherein the third step is provided downstream of the second step (fig.4: (17)),
Hiroaki does not disclose the push-in amount in the third step is zero.
However, Hiroaki discloses wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side (fig.4: the upstream side at element (16)) to a downstream side (fig.4: the downstream side at element (18)) (paragraphs 0008 and 0030) in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008);
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a push-in amount to be as desired depending on the amount of deformation to be corrected, including the push-in amount in the third step is zero, in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008).
Or,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hiroaki to have the push-in amount in the third step is zero in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008), since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Hiroaki discloses a wire material shaping device (fig.4, paragraphs 0001, 0008 and 0030) comprising:
a feeding unit that feeds a wire material (fig.4: the wire (W) is feeding to the device (16) from the right side);
a first roller group (fig.4: (16)) including a plurality of rollers (fig.4: (51-52)) driven by a motor (Hiroaki does not explicitly disclose a motor, however, the device of the Hiroaki must have a motor in order to operate the rollers) to press the wire material fed by the feeding unit; and
a second roller group (fig.4: (17)) that includes a plurality of rollers (fig.4: (45-55)) configured to further press the wire material pressed by the first roller group and is rotatably supported,
wherein a push- in amount that is a difference between an outer dimension of the wire material and a gap between rollers of the plurality of rollers of the first roller group and the plurality of rotatably supported rollers of the second roller group, through which the wire material passes is larger in the first roller group than in the second roller group (paragraphs 0008 and 0030); and
wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side (fig.4: the upstream side at element (16)) to a downstream side (fig.4: the downstream side at element (18)) (paragraphs 0008 and 0030)
Hiroaki does not disclose decreases to zero; and wherein a minimum push-in amount in the first roller group is at least 10 times a maximum push-in amount in the second roller group.
However, Hiroaki discloses wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side (fig.4: the upstream side at element (16)) to a downstream side (fig.4: the downstream side at element (18)) (paragraphs 0008 and 0030) in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008);
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a push-in amount to be as desired depending on the amount of deformation to be corrected, including wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side; and wherein a minimum push-in amount in the first roller group is at least 10 times a maximum push-in amount in the second roller group, in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008).
Or,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hiroaki to have wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side; and wherein a minimum push-in amount in the first roller group is at least 10 times a maximum push-in amount in the second roller group in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008), since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Hiroaki discloses wherein the first roller group (fig.4: (16)) is placed between the feeding unit (fig.4: the wire (W) is feeding to the device (16) from the right side) and the second roller group (fig.4: (17)),
and the push-in amount in the first roller group sequentially decreases from the feeding unit to the second roller group (paragraphs 0008 and 0030: the bend is decrees direction of the travel of the wire).
Regarding claim 9, Hiroaki does not disclose wherein the push-in amount in the second roller group sequentially decreases to zero from the first roller group to an opposite side.
However, Hiroaki discloses wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side (fig.4: the upstream side at element (16)) to a downstream side (fig.4: the downstream side at element (18)) (paragraphs 0008 and 0030) in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008);
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a push-in amount to be as desired depending on the amount of deformation to be corrected, including wherein the push-in amount in the second roller group sequentially decreases to zero from the first roller group to an opposite side, in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008).
Or,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hiroaki to have wherein the push-in amount in the second roller group sequentially decreases to zero from the first roller group to an opposite side in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008), since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 11, Hiroaki discloses further comprising a third roller group (fig.4: (18)) rotatably supported and including a plurality of rollers (fig.4: (57-58)) that further press the wire material pressed by the second roller group (fig.4: (17)),
Hiroaki does not disclose the push-in amount in the third step is zero.
However, Hiroaki discloses wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side (fig.4: the upstream side at element (16)) to a downstream side (fig.4: the downstream side at element (18)) (paragraphs 0008 and 0030) in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008);
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a push-in amount to be as desired depending on the amount of deformation to be corrected, including the push-in amount in the third step is zero, in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008).
Or,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hiroaki to the push-in amount in the third step is zero in order to have eliminates the bending and coiling tendencies of the wires, allowing them to be straightened to a nearly perfect stat (Hiroaki: paragraph 0008), since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki (JP2007229745A attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Okada (JPH04119921U attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 6, Hiroaki does not disclose wherein a surface of each roller constituting the first roller group is urethane rubber.
Okada teaches a method for shaping a wire material that moves from an upstream side to a downstream side (fig.4, paragraphs 001-003 and 0008-0009), the method comprising:
a surface of each roller constituting a first roller group is urethane rubber (paragraphs 0008-0009).
Both of the prior arts of Hiroaki and Okada a method for shaping a wire material that moves from an upstream side to a downstream side;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first roller group of the method of Hiroaki to have a surface is urethane rubber as taught by Okada in order to prevent destructive phenomena such as peeling and cracking (Okada: paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 12, Hiroaki does not disclose wherein a surface of each roller constituting the first roller group is urethane rubber.
Okada teaches a device for shaping a wire material that moves from an upstream side to a downstream side (fig.4, paragraphs 001-003 and 0008-0009), the device comprising:
a surface of each roller constituting a first roller group is urethane rubber (paragraphs 0008-0009).
Both of the prior arts of Hiroaki and Okada a method for shaping a wire material that moves from an upstream side to a downstream side;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first roller group of the device of Hiroaki to have a surface is urethane rubber as taught by Okada in order to prevent destructive phenomena such as peeling and cracking (Okada: paragraph 0007).
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki (JP2007229745A attached NPL, English Machine translation) in view of Zheyang (JP6445370B2 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroaki discloses a method for shaping a wire material that moves from an upstream side to a downstream side (fig.4, paragraphs 001 and 0030), the method comprising:
a first step of feeding (fig.4: the wire (W) is feeding to the device (16) from the right side) the wire material while pressing the wire material by a first roller group (fig.4: (16)) including a plurality of rollers (fig.4: (51-52)) driven by a motor (Hiroaki does not explicitly disclose a motor, however, the device of the Hiroaki must have a motor in order to operate the rollers); and
a second step of feeding the wire material while pressing the wire material by a second roller group (fig.4: (17)) including a plurality of rotatably supported rollers (fig.4: (45-55)),
wherein the first step is provided upstream of the second step (fig.4), and
a push-in amount that is a difference between an outer dimension of the wire material and a gap between rollers of the plurality of rollers of the first roller group and the plurality of rotatably supported rollers of the second roller group, through which the wire material passes is larger in the first step than in the second step (paragraph 0030).
Hiroaki does not disclose in the second step the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from the upstream side to the downstream side, and a minimum push-in amount in the first step is at least 10 times as large as a maximum push-in amount in the second step.
Further, Zheyang teaches a method for shaping a wire material that moves from an upstream side to a downstream side (fig.1, paragraphs 001 and 0019-20), the method comprising:
a roller group including a plurality of rollers, a push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side to a downstream side of the roller group (fig.1: (14a), paragraphs 001 and 0019-20);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first step of the method of Hiroaki to have a push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side to a downstream side as taught by Zheyang in order to achieved a high straightness (Zheyang: paragraphs 0015-0016). Thereby having in the second step the push-in amount sequentially decreases from the upstream side to the downstream side.
Hiroaki in view of Zheyang does not disclose in the second step the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from the upstream side to the downstream side, and a minimum push-in amount in the first step is at least 10 times as large as a maximum push-in amount in the second step.
However, Zheyang discloses a push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side to a downstream side of the roller group (fig.1: (14a), paragraphs 001 and 0019-20);
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a push-in amount to be as desired depending on the amount of distortion to be corrected, including wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side; and a minimum push-in amount in the first step is at least 10 times as large as a maximum push-in amount in the second step in order to achieved a high straightness (Zheyang: paragraphs 0015-0016).
Or,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hiroaki in view of Zheyang to have wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side; and a minimum push-in amount in the first step is at least 10 times as large as a maximum push-in amount in the second step in order to achieved a high straightness (Zheyang: paragraphs 0015-0016), since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Hiroaki discloses a wire material shaping device (fig.4, paragraphs 0001, 0008 and 0030) comprising:
a feeding unit that feeds a wire material (fig.4: the wire (W) is feeding to the device (16) from the right side);
a first roller group (fig.4: (16)) including a plurality of rollers (fig.4: (51-52)) driven by a motor (Hiroaki does not explicitly disclose a motor, however, the device of the Hiroaki must have a motor in order to operate the rollers) to press the wire material fed by the feeding unit; and
a second roller group (fig.4: (17)) that includes a plurality of rollers (fig.4: (45-55)) configured to further press the wire material pressed by the first roller group and is rotatably supported,
wherein a push- in amount that is a difference between an outer dimension of the wire material and a gap between rollers of the plurality of rollers of the first roller group and the plurality of rotatably supported rollers of the second roller group, through which the wire material passes is larger in the first roller group than in the second roller group (paragraphs 0008 and 0030); and
wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side (fig.4: the upstream side at element (16)) to a downstream side (fig.4: the downstream side at element (18)) (paragraphs 0008 and 0030)
Hiroaki does not disclose decreases to zero; and wherein a minimum push-in amount in the first roller group is at least 10 times a maximum push-in amount in the second roller group.
Zheyang teaches a wire material shaping device (fig.1, paragraphs 001 and 0019-20), comprising:
a roller group including a plurality of rollers, a push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side to a downstream side of the roller group (fig.1: (14a), paragraphs 001 and 0019-20);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Hiroaki to have a push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side to a downstream side as taught by Zheyang in order to achieved a high straightness (Zheyang: paragraphs 0015-0016). Thereby having in the second step the push-in amount sequentially decreases from the upstream side to the downstream side.
Hiroaki in view of Zheyang does not disclose decreases to zero; and wherein a minimum push-in amount in the first roller group is at least 10 times a maximum push-in amount in the second roller group;
However, Zheyang discloses a push-in amount sequentially decreases from an upstream side to a downstream side of the roller group (fig.1: (14a), paragraphs 001 and 0019-20);
Therefore; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select a push-in amount to be as desired depending on the amount of distortion to be corrected, including wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side;and wherein a minimum push-in amount in the first roller group is at least 10 times a maximum push-in amount in the second roller group in order to achieved a high straightness (Zheyang: paragraphs 0015-0016).
Or,
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Hiroaki in view of Zheyang to have wherein the push-in amount sequentially decreases to zero from an upstream side to a downstream side;and wherein a minimum push-in amount in the first roller group is at least 10 times a maximum push-in amount in the second roller group in order to achieved a high straightness (Zheyang: paragraphs 0015-0016), since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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, CHRISTOPHER TEMPLETON can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights