DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the arguments filed 06/25/2026. Claims 19-22, 24, 26-29, 31-33, and 35-40 are currently pending with claims 19, 31-32 and 40 amended. Claims 1-18, 23, 25, 30 and 34 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the response, filed 06/25/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of 03/25/2026 have been withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
PNG
media_image1.png
902
1332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to arguments on page 8-18 of the response regarding the prior art Gerber, examiner disagrees that the prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed architecture. The identified walls of the hub 12, the shroud 14 and the blades 16 is the exterior of the cell unit that forms the fluid-contact face, see annotated figure above for instance.
Additionally, it is contended that the impeller, 16 of Gerber for instance, is constructed entirely from cell units, namely the cavities 92 are arranged along the lengths of 16, see ¶ [0024] of Gerber for instance. Examiner contends that a shorthand reference was not being made to the surfaces of 12, 14, and 16 but instead a concise clear depiction of a system having walls, some of which serves as fluid contact surfaces, within which are contained a series of apertures forming a cell unit structure. Therefore, the outer boundaries of the system of Gerber are the walls of the series of apertures or voids formed within said walls and teaching the limitations invention as claimed. While Gerber does not particularly point out these walls and surfaces as contact for working fluid, it is clear, to one having ordinary skills in the art, that impeller structures of this type pass fluid within the hub 14, within the shroud 12 and over the outer surfaces of the blades 16 (see ¶ [0002] of how fluid interacts with the overall impeller structure for instance). Examiner also disagrees with the arguments that “Gerber expressly establishing that the internal surfaces bounding voids 52, 54, or 92 are the fluid-contact surfaces identified by Gerber” and contends that Gerber establish that the voids are internal elements of structure of the impeller system.
Examiner contends that the prior art Gerber does teach, contrary to arguments, the aperture 92 being completely enclosed cavity, in teaching that they are arranged along the length of the blades (see ¶ [0023]) and thus completely enclosed as claimed.
Examiner also contends that Gerber teaches the claimed limitations as amended in claim 19 including the impeller as a whole. The impeller 16 of Gerber has apertures or voids distributed along the length of the blades and thus forming a cell unit structure of the impeller or blade (see ¶ [0024]). That is, the side-by-side arrangement of the voids or apertures along the length of the blades establish a cell unit structure and with exterior walls.
Examiner disagrees with the arguments that “Gerber does not describe the hub, shroud, or blades as being constructed entirely from cell units or cavity segments” and contends that the pattern of the voids, cavity or apertures in the structure of the system of Gerber forms cell units. It is contended that the structure as a whole of the system of Gerber presents a system with cell units despite how the system is formed. In accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Gerber teaches the structure as claimed.
Examiner agrees with the arguments that “the mere existence of an internal void therefore does not, by itself, establish the existence of a claimed cell unit” but contends that it is the pattern of the voids in the system which constitute the claimed cell unit in Gerber. Further, the voids which may be omitted in the description of ¶ [0023] of Gerber is the drainage holes 61 and 62 used in the forming of the structure, as understood by one having ordinary skills in the art, including the forming of voids 52 and 54. Therefore, Gerber’s impeller is also constructed entirely from cell units as the claimed invention.
Again, in response to arguments that, Gerber, “These disclosures describe selected hollow regions within larger components; they do not disclose that wall-defined cavity segments are the constituent structural building units of the entire impeller” and arguments on page 13-18 of the response, in accordance with MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Examiner contends that the term entirely is considered as claimed. Examiner also contends that it does not appear that Gerber teaches an embodiment of a component being “entirely voidless” and even if so, Gerber does also teach a patterned void system. It is unclear if the arguments of “Gerber's one-piece construction does not inherently disclose that the impeller is constructed entirely from cell units in the form of cavity segments” points to the method of forming the structure but contends with reference to counter arguments made regarding MPEP 2113. In response to arguments that “Nor does Gerber provide a teaching or technical reason that, based on Gerber itself, would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to reorganize the entire impeller as an arrangement of cavity-segment cell units” it is contended Gerber teaches the limitations as claimed. Lastly, examiner contends that Gerber teaches the fluid-contact face as outlined in the annotated figure above.
In response to arguments to the prior art Uhlmann and Xiang, examiner contends that the prior art Uhlmann is relied upon to teach voids or cavities of structures analogous to the claimed invention that may have regular patterned lattice structures and the prior art Xiang is relied upon to teach a honeycomb structure used to form cell units in a blade arrangement structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 19-22, 24, 26, 28-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) and in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation).
In Reference to claim 19
Gerber discloses a centrifugal pump (¶ [0002]) comprises:
a blade arrangement (Fig. 3: 10 for instance), wherein
the blade arrangement has a carrier unit (12, see also figure 1) on which blades (16) are arranged,
the blade arrangement has cell units that enclose cavities (52, 54 and 92 for instance), the cell units being formed by walls (walls around 52, 54 and 92 for instance),
the carrier unit and the blades have cell units which enclose the cavities (52 in carrier 12 and 92 in blades 16 for instance, each surrounded by walls), and all walls of the cell units are formed integrally by the carrier unit and the blade (¶ [0020]: the structure formed as a monolithic structure for instance),
wherein the cell units (adjacent ones of 52 or adjacent 54 for instance) are arranged without gaps between them (¶ [0021], without drainage holes for instance, and thus formed as enclosed cells) and are arranged directly next to one another (as seen in figure 3, 52’s or 54’s directly next to one another for instance) so that a blade arrangement having a high strength is formed without gaps (¶ [0036], the blade arrangement formed to have strength for instance), and cell units arranged directly next to one another share walls (as seen in figure 3, 52’s or 54’s directly next to one another for instance), and wherein the cavities may be formed having different shapes (Geber, ¶ [0027]-[0028]), and
the blade arrangement (10) is configured as an impeller (system to move a fluid for instance, see ¶ [0002]), the impeller is constructed entirely from the cell units in the form of cavity segments (segments of 52, 54 and 92 each surrounded by walls for instance), and outer walls of the cell units form the fluid-contact face of the blade arrangement (walls of 12, 14 and 16 for instance, see also annotated figure above).
Gerber does not teach “... the cell units form a honeycomb structure of the blade arrangement ....”
Uhlmann is related to a blade arrangement (Fig. 1: 1 for instance) with cell units that enclose cavities (3 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the cell units form a lattice structure of the blade arrangement (as seen in figure 4 for instance).
Xiang is related to a blade arrangement (Fig. 1) having cell units that enclose cavities (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2 of the honeycomb structure for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the cell units form a honeycomb structure (see figures 1 and 2 and ¶ [0013]) of the blade arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the cell units form a honeycomb structure (of regular lattice structures as taught by Uhlmann and honeycomb structures as taught by Xiang) of the blade arrangement (of Gerber), so as to use a structure (lattice structures as taught by Uhlmann and honeycomb structures as taught by Xiang), known to be used in the art to form blade arrangements and that aids in dispersing stress, in helping in preventing stress concentration and minimizing the weight of a system (as taught by Xiang, ¶ [0013], ¶ [0016] of Uhlmann and Gerber ¶ [0020]), into the system of Gerber and predictably form the bade arrangement..
In Reference to claim 20
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 19, wherein cell units (Gerber: 52, 54 and 92 for instance) are arranged directly next to one another (Gerber as seen in figure 3 for instance).
In Reference to claim 21
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 20, wherein the cell units (Gerber: 52, 54 and 92 for instance) arranged directly next to one another share walls (Gerber as seen in figure 3 for instance).
In Reference to claim 22
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 21, with Gerber further teaching that the cavities may be formed having different shapes (Geber, ¶ [0027]-[0028]), wherein the cell units form a honeycomb structure (as taught by Xiang, see figures 1 and 2 and ¶ [0013]). Again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the cell units form a honeycomb structure, so as to use a structure, known to be used in the art to form blade arrangements and that aids in dispersing stress, in helping in preventing stress concentration and minimizing the weight of the system (Xiang, ¶ [0013] and Gerber ¶ [0020]).
In Reference to claim 24
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 21, wherein the walls of the cell units form cavities (see figure 3 of Gerber).
In Reference to claim 26
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 24, wherein all of the walls of the cell units are formed in multiple pieces and/or in a hybrid fashion by the carrier unit and blades (Gerber, the cavities 52 and 92 and formed in carrier 12 and blades 26 for instance).
In Reference to claim 28
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 27, further comprising reinforcing ribs that are arranged inside the cell units and/or between neighboring cell units (Gerber, figures 6-11 with ribs 56 for instance).
In Reference to claim 29
Geber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 28, wherein the cell units are aligned radially and/or in the circumferential direction (Gerber, see figures 2, 3 and 5 for instance).
In Reference to claim 31
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 19, wherein the walls and/or the reinforcing ribs are produced from a metallic material (Gerber, ¶ [0021]).
In Reference to claim 32
Geber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 19, wherein the walls and/or the reinforcing ribs are produced from a material combination (Gerber ¶ [0021], the capability of using different materials in different portions of the blade arrangement 10 for instance).
In Reference to claim 33
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 32, Xiang further teaching wherein the cavities of the cell units are at least partially filled with a material (¶ [0029], the holes being filled for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the cavities of the cell units (of Geber) are at least partially filled with a material, as taught by Xiang, so as to possibly improve the heat conductivity of the blade arrangement of Gerber (Xiang, ¶ [0013]).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) and in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of US 2019/0017492 to Harrington et al. (Harrington).
In Reference to claim 27
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 26, except, “... wherein the walls have a thickness of less than 3 mm ....”
Harrington is related to a blade arrangement (abstract, a turbine blade) with cell units that enclose cavities (interior honeycomb structure as seen in figures 2 and 3B for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein walls (of the honeycomb structure for instance) have a varying thickness (¶ [0038]) and so as to tailor the design need of the cell structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the walls have a tailored thickness, so as to garner optimal results for the blade arrangement per desired requirements.
In view of the prior art teachings that the selecting a thickness of walls of the cell system is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the walls of Gerber wherein the walls have a thickness of less than 3 mm, since it has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955),“[W]here 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.” MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) and in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2018/0001557 to Buller et al. (Buller).
In Reference to claim 35
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses a method for producing a centrifugal pump having a blade arrangement as claimed in claim 19 (such as using a metal sintering or a 3D printing process as taught by Gerber, ¶ [0020]), with an integrative manufacturing unit (system to carry out the metal sintering or 3D printing process for instance, as taught, Gerber, ¶ [0035]), the method comprising:
forming the cell units from a construction material (materials used to form the impeller, Gerber [0021]).
Geber does not explicitly teach “... configuring the walls and/or the reinforcing ribs by selective action of energy in the form of radiation, temperature and pressure, producing the walls and the reinforcing ribs by deliberate variation of the action of energy, and deliberate variating of the thickness of the walls in order to adapt to the load requirements ....”
Regarding the limitation “... configuring the walls and/or the reinforcing ribs by selective action of energy in the form of radiation, temperature and pressure, producing the walls and the reinforcing ribs by deliberate variation of the action of energy ...”: Buller is related to a 3D printing process for producing a device, as the claimed invention, and teaches configuring the device by selective action of energy in the form of radiation, temperature and pressure, producing the device by deliberate variation of the action of energy ([0317]: selective application of energy beam, maintenance of temperature and pressure for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the method for producing the centrifugal pump having a blade arrangement includes configuring the walls and/or the reinforcing ribs (of the cell structure of Gerber) by selective action of energy in the form of radiation, temperature and pressure (as taught by Buller), producing the walls and the reinforcing ribs (of Gerber) by deliberate variation of the action of energy (as taught by Buller), so as to use an art known technique (of forming a device using a 3D printing process for instance) to form the centrifugal pump having a blade arrangement of Gerber and predictably produce the centrifugal pump having a blade arrangement.
Regarding the limitation “... deliberate variating of the thickness of the walls in order to adapt to the load requirements ....”: Xiang (as noted above) is related to a blade arrangement (Fig. 1) having cell units that enclose cavities (as seen in Figs. 1 and 2 of the honeycomb structure for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches configuring walls and/or reinforcing ribs selectively (the variation of thickness of the cell structure, ¶ [0011] and [0026]) and deliberate variating of the thickness of the walls in order to adapt to the load requirements (¶ [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber with deliberate variating of the thickness (as taught by Xiang) of the walls (of Gerber) in order to adapt to the load requirements (as taught by Xiang), so as to use an art known technique, of 3D printing for instance, to predictably form the system of Gerber including the variation of thickness (Xiang, ¶ [0013]).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) and in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US Patent 9,567,992 to Heide et al. (Heide).
In Reference to claim 36
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the use of a centrifugal pump having a blade arrangement as claimed in claim 19, but does not explicitly teach, “... as a microdosing pump ....”
Examiner notes that it has been held that ‘A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (such as used for microdosing) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.’ Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II).
Nonetheless, Heide is related to a centrifugal pumps (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches the centrifugal pump being a microdosing pump (abstract and claim 7: the operation of the pump used for medication dosing for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the centrifugal pump is a microdosing pump, as taught by Heide, so as to use an art known device (centrifugal pump for instance) as a microdosing pump to predictable pump a fluid (Heide: abstract and claim 7).
Claim(s) 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) and in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0332460 to Wang et al. (Wang).
In Reference to claim 37
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann and Xiang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 19, wherein the cell units are formed by wear and erosion resistant and corrosion-resistant walls (Geber ¶ [0036], of materials used to form the centrifugal pump for instance).
Gerber does not explicitly teach “... abrasion-resistant ....”
Wang is related to materials used to form components of a turbine (¶ [0002]), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the materials used to form the components are abrasion-resistant and corrosion-resistant (¶ [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the cell units (of Gerber) are formed by abrasion-resistant (the use of such materials as taught by Wang) and corrosion-resistant walls (as taught by Gerber), so as to use an art known technique (of using certain materials to form components of a turbine, as taught by Wang, such a centrifugal pumps) into the system of Gerber and predictably for the component of the centrifugal pump.
In Reference to claim 38
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann, Xiang and Wang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 37, wherein the blade arrangement has no openly accessible cavities (Gerber, such as not having drainage holes and formed monolithically for instance, see ¶ [0023] and [0020]).
Claim(s) 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0267543 to Gerber et al. (Gerber) in view of WO2018046182 to Uhlmann et al. (Uhlmann, and based on English machine translation) in view of CN106678077 to Xiang (Xiang, and based on English machine translation) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0332460 to Wang et al. (Wang) as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of US 2019/0017492 to Harrington et al. (Harrington).
In Reference to claim 39
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann, Xiang and Wang, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 38, with reinforcing ribs are arranged inside the cell units and/or between neighboring cell units (Gerber ¶ [0023], ribs in each cell unit and walls shared between the cell units for instance).
Gerber does not teach, however, “... wherein the walls have a thickness of less than 1 mm ....”
Harrington is related to a blade arrangement (abstract, a turbine blade) with cell units that enclose cavities (interior honeycomb structure as seen in figures 2 and 3B for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein walls (of the honeycomb structure for instance) have a varying thickness (¶ [0038]) and so as to tailor the design need of the cell structure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Gerber wherein the walls have a tailored thickness, so as to garner optimal results for the blade arrangement per desired requirements.
In view of the prior art teachings that the selecting a thickness of walls of the cell system is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the walls of Gerber wherein the walls have a thickness of less than 1 mm, since it has been held that optimizing a result effective variable was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955),“[W]here 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.” MPEP 2144.05 I and II.
In Reference to claim 40
Gerber, as modified by Uhlmann, Xiang, Wang and Harrington, discloses the centrifugal pump as claimed in claim 39, wherein an integrality is achieved by a generative manufacturing method (a product by process limitation).
The limitation “the integrality is achieved by a generative manufacturing method” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is that the integrality is made by generative manufacturing. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar product is found, a 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113
Nonetheless, the prior art Gerber teaches wherein the integrality is achieved by a generative manufacturing method (Gerber ¶ [0020], a monolithic structure formed by additive manufacturing for instance).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show materials used to from blade arrangements.
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 WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights