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 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Cap and spool of claim 1;
Two parts of the spool of claim 1;
Means to receive and rotate the body of claim 1;
The means to exert pressure on and consequently attach, the cap to the body of the spool of claim 1;
The means to manoeuvre horizontally over the operating area of claim 1;
The means to guide the thread towards the spool of claim 1;
Three pneumatic shafts of claim 1;
pneumatic actuators including means to jam, cut, and position the thread of claim 1;
pneumatic control box with an air filtration system and a solenoid valve set of claim 2;
access to the operating zone via four points which are duly protected by safety sensors… LED lighting… access doors…an electric cabinet…a control board with a touch screen, buttons and emergency stop button of claim 3;
a stepper motor connected to a reduction transmission of claim 4;
4-finger self-centering gripper of claim 5;
A mechanism on its upper section to position the cap of the spool, and the means to determine whether the cap has been positioned correctly of claim 6;
A mechanical catcher, an inductive sensor, and a compensator system of claim 7;
A servomotor with an attached ball screw system and a system whose function is to adjust the tension of the thread to be wound of claim 8;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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: Numerous grammatical errors throughout specification. Appropriate correction is required.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “thus, the reels direct the thread towards the thread guide unit”, Page 7, lines 18-19; “this motion is followed by the thread and transferred to the winding process in the spool” Page 7, lines 23-24.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Improper punctuation in claim 1- Remove periods and replace with semi-colons
In line 16 it appears there is a typographical error and “ centring” should read --centering--
in line 17 it appears there is a typographical error and “manoeuvre” should read --maneuver--
in line 24 it appears there is a typographical error and “ 3” should read --three--
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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“the means to receive and rotate the body of the spool” in claim 1 is being interpreted in light of the specification which reads “a mechanism on their upper section to locate the pins of the spool and place it in a specific position for the purpose of attaching the cap” Page 6, lines 24-26, and equivalents thereof
“the means to exert pressure on and consequently attach, the cap to the body of the spool” in claim 1 – no structure recited in the specification (see rejections below under 112(a) and 112(b))
“the means to manoeuvre horizontally” in claim 1 is being interpreted in light of the specification which reads “a linear table with a guiding system and double acting pneumatic actuator which extracts the entire centring system to give the robot access” Page 7, lines 3-6, and equivalents thereof
“the means to guide the thread towards the spool” in claim 1 is being interpreted in light of the specification which reads “a servomotor with an attached ball screw system that transforms the rotation of the motor into a linear motion. This motion is followed by the thread and transferred to the winding process in the spool” Page 7, lines 22-24, and equivalents thereof
“pneumatic actuators including the means to jam, cut and position the thread” in claim 1 – no structure recited in specification (see rejections under 112(a) and 112 (b) below)
“the means to determine whether the cap has been positioned correctly” in claim 6 is being interpreted in light of the specification which reads “two fibre optic photocells detect whether the spool has been placed in an incorrect position” Page 6, lines 26-27, and equivalents thereof
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:
“the support centring system” in claim 1 – no structure recited in specification (see rejections below under 112(a) and 112(b))
“a mechanism on its upper section to position the cap of the spool” in claim 6, line 15 – no structure recited in specification (see rejections under 112(a) and 112(b), below)
“a mechanical catcher to prevent knots in the system” in claim 7, line 20 – no structure recited in specification (see rejections under 112(a) and 112(b), below)
“a compensator system whose function is to absorb peak tension on the thread” in claim 7, line 22 – no structure recited in specification (see rejections under 112(a) and 112(b), below)
“a system whose function is to adjust the tension of the thread to be wound” in claim 8, lines 26-27 – no structure recited in specification (see rejections under 112(a) and 112(b), below)
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a 4-axis robot with the means to handle both the two parts of the spool and the spool unit” in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “support centring system” in line 16, “the means to exert pressure on, and consequently attach, the cap to the body of the spool” in lines 16-17, and “the means to jam, cut and position the thread” in lines 25-26. The specification does not describe these limitations in further detail and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement as the specification does not reasonably convey applicant’s claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a mechanism on its upper section to position the cap of the spool” in lines 15-16. The specification does not describe this limitation in further detail and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement as the specification does not reasonably convey applicant’s claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 recites the limitations “a mechanical catcher to prevent knots in the system” in line 20, and “a compensator system whose function is to absorb peak tension on the thread” in line 22. The specification does not describe these limitations in further detail and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement as the specification does not reasonably convey applicant’s claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a system whose function is to adjust the tension of the thread to be wound” in lines 26-27. The specification does not describe these limitations in further detail and therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement as the specification does not reasonably convey applicant’s claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2-5 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the various sub-stations" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation in Claim 1, line 4, “a bench” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to the “a bench” of line 3, or a different bench.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the body" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spool" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation in Claim 1, line 6, “the machine” is vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether applicant intends to refer to the winding machine of line 1 or “a machine” in line 3.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the area" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the conveyor belts" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the means to handle" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the two parts of the spool" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the spool unit" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the means to receive" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the means to exert" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the means to manoeuvre" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the operating area" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the means to guide" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the means to" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitations in Claim 1: “support centring system” in line 16, “the means to exert pressure on, and consequently attach, the cap to the body of the spool” in lines 16-17, and “the means to jam, cut and position the thread” in lines 25-26, invoke 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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.
Claims 2-8 are rejected because they depend from rejected base claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the operating zone" in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the machine’s power supply" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the feed belts" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the input of parts" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the means to determine" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 limitation “a mechanism on its upper section to position the cap of the spool” 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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 7 limitations “a mechanical catcher to prevent knots in the system” in line 20 and “a compensator system whose function is to absorb peak tension on the thread” in lines 21-22, 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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 8 recites the limitation "the tension" in line 27. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “a system whose function is to adjust the tension of the thread to be wound” 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. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00pm - 6:00pm EST.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/K.R.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654