DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 4/13/26. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “44” has been used to designate both “automatic process control” (PA 0066), “control device” (0066), and “PLC” (0073). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph 0066 recites “automatic process control 44” and “control device 44” while 0073 recites “PLC 44” and thus it is unclear as to what “44” is.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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: “a workpiece holder… for holding”, “a pressing device arranged and adapted to”, and “a sensor device for generating” in claims 1, 11, and 23.
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 § 112
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 1, 11, and 23 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.
In claims 1, 11, and 23 the limitation “pressing device arranged and adapted to” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification recites pressing device (20) and the drawings have the reference character (20) there is no clear linkage as to what constitutes the pressing device; i.e. is the pressing device the collection of all the components (5, 28, 24, 26, 22, 32, 36) or just some of these or just one of these. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 12 recites “at least one of a position of a pressing punch and/or force applied to the workpiece.” This is indefinite since it is unclear if there to be two options; i) the position and ii) the position and the force, or if there are to be three options; i) the position, ii) the position and the force, and iii) the force. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 23 recites “position, or path of the pressing device.” It is unclear as to what the difference of these is when the path and position are both determined by distance; 0043 and 0062.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-10, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0215781 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka discloses:
An automatic high-temperature joining furnace [hot press device (A); figure 1], configured for diffusion bonding of joining materials, comprising:
a heating chamber [heating chamber furnace (2)] with a heating device [heater (2C)],
a workpiece holder [unlabeled component resting on pressing surface (4a)] arranged in the heating chamber for holding a workpiece to be processed in the joining furnace,
a pressing device [hydraulic cylinder (3)] arranged and adapted to exert a pressing force on the workpiece,
a sensor device [not shown; 0027] for generating at least one sensor signal [note that it is inherent that the sensor device generates a signal in order for the controller to receive information from the sensor device], and
a control device adapted to control at least the pressing device in response to the at least one sensor signal [0027, 0028].
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the sensor device is configured to detect
at least one of the following process parameters:
thickness of the workpiece, position of a pressing punch in the pressing device, position of a press abutment, pressing force, hydraulic pressure, or path of the pressing device; and/or
to generate at least one sensor signal therefrom [0027].
Regarding claim 3, Tanaka discloses:
further comprising at least one further sensor device for simultaneously detecting one or more process parameters and for generating at least one further sensor signal [0027].
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the pressing device comprises a hydraulic device [hydraulic cylinder (3)] as a pressing force generator and builds up the pressing force by building up a hydraulic pressure [this is an inherent operation of a hydraulic cylinder], and/or
wherein the pressing device comprises an electric spindle.
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka discloses:
further comprising an input device [controller; 0037], for inputting process parameter specifications, and/or
further comprising an output device, for displaying or selecting process parameters and/or a control program.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the pressing device comprises at least one of a pressing plate [upper punch (6)], with which the pressing force is applied to the workpiece, a pressing cylinder [hydraulic cylinder (3)], and/or a plurality of pressing punches [press rams (7a)].
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the high-temperature joining furnace comprises an outer frame [support mechanism (1)], and
wherein the pressing device is arranged on the outer frame and/or is supported on the outer frame [see figure 1].
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the outer frame is designed to be movable and/or deformable [note anything can be moved].
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Tanaka discloses:
As noted in the PA Pub, “[0071] In other words, the pressing device 20 is supported on the outer frame 7, 9, 10 at a “support point” in order to brace itself to apply the pressing force to the workpiece 50. The support point is referred to as press abutment 18, as the “support point” forms an abutment for absorbing the pressing force. In FIGS. 4 and 5, press abutment 18 is therefore only the place where the pressing device 20 is supported.”
further comprising a press abutment [the only area where hydraulic cylinder (3) is supported on upper frame (1b)] which is prepared in such a way that a lateral displacement and/or deformation of the press abutment takes place by means of an application of a compressive force by the pressing device to the workpiece; and
wherein the pressing device is set up in such a way that a pre-tensioning force can be built up to a supporting frame element during a pressing operation.
Concerning any claimed results, materials, and/or functions:
Since the prior art apparatus, i.e. the apparatus based on the prior art references above, is structurally identical to the claimed apparatus, it is the examiner’s position that the prior art apparatus is capable of achieving any claimed function with any claimed material to achieve any claimed result; such as prepared in such a way that a lateral displacement and/or deformation of the press abutment takes place, that a pre-tensioning force can be built up, etc. This reasoning applies to any claim below where functional language, material worked upon, and/or a result is claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the control device is adapted to additionally control the heating device [0027].
Regarding claim 15, Tanaka discloses:
wherein the workpiece holder serves as a counter-pressing element, and/or
wherein the pressing device presses the workpiece against the workpiece holder [see figure 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0215781 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gong et al. (CN 111229904 A).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka teaches:
An automatic high-temperature joining furnace [hot press device (A); figure 1], configured for diffusion bonding of joining materials, comprising:
a heating chamber [heating chamber furnace (2)] with a heating device [heater (2C)],
a workpiece holder [unlabeled component resting on pressing surface (4a)] arranged in the heating chamber for holding a workpiece to be processed in the joining furnace,
a pressing device [hydraulic cylinder (3)] arranged and adapted to exert a pressing force on the workpiece,
a sensor device [not shown; 0027] for generating at least one sensor signal [note that it is inherent that the sensor device generates a signal in order for the controller to receive information from the sensor device], and
a control device adapted to control at least the pressing device in response to the at least one sensor signal [0027, 0028].
Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the sensor device detects at least one of a position of a pressing punch and/or force applied to the workpiece.
However, Tanaka does teach the operation of the hydraulic cylinder is controlled by the controller; 0028 and the operation of the cylinder is started after reaching the processing temperature and pressure; 0038.
Gong teaches displacement sensor (1) is arranged on the punch cylinder 5, and the displacement sensor (1) is used to collect the elongation displacement signal of the punch cylinder 5; under “Description”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Gong sensor in order to control the displacement of any part of the press device, minus any unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the sensor device is adapted to detect the position of the pressing punch with an accuracy of ±10 µm or less, and/or with an accuracy of ±1µm or more.
However, since the claimed sensor and that of Gong are structurally identical it is the examiner’s position that the Gong sensor is capable of this. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a displacement sensor that is capable of the claimed accuracy due to the precision of the workpieces being worked upon.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0215781 A1) in view of Gong et al. (CN 111229904 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Frank et al. (US 7,669,749 B2) and Nakajima (JP 2007-75840 A).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the control device is designed to determine a pressing force required for the workpiece for a joining operation by means of detection and evaluation of the sensor signal or signals and to automatically control the pressing device on a basis of the determined required pressing force.
Nakajima teaches a hot press comprising controller (10) wherein the controller controls the hot press via signals from force sensor (8) or displacement sensor (9); abstract.
Frank teaches a welding machine comprising control unit (13) wherein the control unit is designed to without individually entering data perform welding by determining/sensing a characteristic of the workpiece, such as the height, width, deformation energy, or constriction, and retrieving stored welding parameters based on the sensed characteristic; abstract and 2:4-15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Frank concept and sense a characteristic of the workpiece such as height, width, deformation energy, constriction or any other variable; such as force or displacement as taught by Nakajima, in order to automatically retrieve stored welding parameters based on the sensed characteristic.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0215781 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Edenfield et al. (US 2019/0160573 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the control device provides at least one selectable control program, and/or a pressing program.
Edenfield teaches a bonding apparatus wherein multiple selectable jobs are stored in the memory of the controller; abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Edenfield job selecting concept into the Tanaka apparatus in order to make it easier to use.
Regarding claim 17, Tanaka teaches:
wherein the control device is further prepared to adapt the at least one sensor signal during execution of the bonding in such a way that process parameters are changed [0027].
Tanaka does not teach:
the control device is further prepared to adapt the at least one selectable control program in response to the at least one sensor signal during execution of the control program.
However, since the Tanaka device has been modified to allow one to select a job, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further configure the controller to change the process parameters of the selected job in order to achieve a desired output, to control quality, and/or stop the process parameters should the signal fall outside of an acceptable range.
Regarding claim 18, Tanaka teaches:
wherein the at least one selectable control program is stored in a program memory of the high-temperature joining furnace [this is addressed in the rejection of claim 16], and/or wherein the control device comprises a programmable logic controller (PLC).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 2020/0215781 A1) in view of Sensata “PRESSURE SENSORS IN HYDRAULIC PRESSES”.
Regarding claim 23, Tanaka teaches:
An automatic high-temperature joining furnace [hot press device (A); figure 1], configured for diffusion bonding of joining materials, comprising:
a heating chamber [heating chamber furnace (2)] with a heating device [heater (2C)],
a workpiece holder [unlabeled component resting on pressing surface (4a)] arranged in the heating chamber for holding a workpiece to be processed in the joining furnace,
a pressing device [hydraulic cylinder (3)] arranged and adapted to exert a pressing force on the workpiece,
a sensor device [not shown; 0027] for generating at least one sensor signal [note that it is inherent that the sensor device generates a signal in order for the controller to receive information from the sensor device], and
a control device adapted to control at least the pressing device in response to the at least one sensor signal [the operation of the hydraulic cylinder is controlled by the controller; 0027-0028, and the operation of the cylinder is started after reaching the processing temperature and pressure; 0037-0038].
Tanaka does not teach:
wherein the sensor device detects at least one of a hydraulic pressure, position, or path of the pressing device.
Sensata teaches using hydraulic pressure sensors linked to a PLC to determine the pressure and position of a hydraulic cylinder in order to control the position of the hydraulic cylinder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Sensata hydraulic pressure senor into Tanaka in order to control the position of the hydraulic cylinder and/or to ensure the correct amount of pressure is being applied. In doing so, the Tanaka controller would receive the sensor signal/data and then operate the hydraulic cylinder as programmed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejection of “pressing device” the applicant notes,
“The claimed pressing device is described in the original specification text on line 32 on page 4 (paragraph 0020 of the published application), on lines 29 and 32 on page 5 (paragraphs 0025-26 of the published application), and in claim 4. The claimed pressing device corresponds to, e.g., a hydraulic device and/or an electric spindle.”
While 0020 states the pressing device can comprise a hydraulic device, 0024 and 0025 also state it can comprise a pressing plunger or a pressing cylinder, respectively, and amended page 10 states it can comprise pressing punches. Thus, is the pressing device any one of these, some combination of these, or something else since it can comprise other elements? Therefore, as stated above in the 112 rejection, it is not clear as to what the pressing device is and therefore what equivalents thereof are. The examiner suggests amending to “pressing cylinder” to make this moot if the applicant does intend for the pressing device to be pressing cylinder (24).
The applicant argues,
“But Tanaka does not describe that control of the pressing device is based on sensor signals. Tanaka shows various sensors and "a control" but the controlled parameter is, e.g., a temperature or a vacuum in the pressing system. But this is not a control of the pressing device, i.e., the pressing force exerted on the workpiece. Nor can this simply be assumed, because the control of the pressing device differs fundamentally from the control of the devices as described in Tanaka. For example, the control of the temperature can be done by changing an operating condition of a heater. However, Tanaka does not only not show to control the pressing device by means of sensor signals, but it does also not motivate a skilled person to "implement" the control of the pressing device into the system of Tanaka; adjustment of the pressing device is not necessary for performing the task described by Tanaka.”
While Tanaka does not sense a property of the hydraulic cylinder and use that property to control it claim 1 does not require this. Instead, any property can be sensed and then the pressing device can be controlled in response. So, after the Tanaka controller receives a signal that the processing temperature and pressure have been reached the controller begins the operation of the hydraulic cylinder; 0027-0028 and 0037-0038, which meets the claim requirements.
The applicant argues,
“To the contrary, in the presently claimed subject matter, it is proposed to control the pressing device by means of the sensor signal. By this it is possible to make a feedback loop to obtain exact pressing results without such a stop frame - thus being more flexible with respect to diffusion bond different objects, differing in any of size, thickness or material being used. Accordingly, independent claim 1 is distinguishable over Tanaka.”
This argument is not persuasive since it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
The applicant argues,
“Gong does not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of Tanaka with respect to independent claim 1, nor with respect to amended independent claim 11 and dependent claims 12 and 13. In fact, Gong does not show a high-temperature joining furnace at all. Gong merely discloses a "hot stamping system" completely unsuitable for diffusion bonding or any such process performed in a hot press device. That differs significantly from the presently claimed furnace in terms of pressure, temperature, and joining forces. There is no "joining" in Gong - just stamping, which is a rather different technical field. Thus, the control system shown by Gong cannot simply be transferred to a high-temperature joining furnace of the present application. Furthermore, Gong does not disclose detection of a pressing force or control of a pressing device based on the pressing force.”
In response to applicant's argument that Gong is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Gong is relevant since it drawn to measuring the distance of a cylinder used to press. Additionally, there is no reason to believe that the Gong sensor would experience heat to a degree that would render it in operable or that it can only be used with the cylinder of Gong. Furthermore, since the applicant has not disclosed that this is an issue with selecting a sensor or what specific sensor should be used this argument is implying that information needed to practice the claimed invention has been omitted.
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 CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights