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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Avey et al., US 2023/0220840.
Regarding Claim 1
Avey discloses a fluid end of a pump, comprising:
a fluid end body (206(3)) defining a bore (2224(3)) extending along a central axis of the fluid end and a first circumferential notch (450’) extending along the central axis and in communication with the bore (2224(3)), wherein a first axial length of the bore (2224(3)) is greater than a second axial length of the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 11);
a suction cap (302”) received within the bore (2224(3)) of the fluid end body (Avey, Figure 11); and
a wear sleeve (320”’) radially disposed between the fluid end body (206(3)) and the suction cap (302”) (Avey, Figure 11), wherein:
the wear sleeve (320”’) circumferentially surrounds the suction cap (302”) (Avey, Figure 11),
the wear sleeve (320”’) is received within the first circumferential notch (450’) of the fluid end body (206(3)) (Avey, Figure 11),
the wear sleeve (320”’) is an L-shaped sleeve (Avey, Figure 11) that defines a first end, a second end opposite the first end along the central axis, an inner surface extending from the first end to the second end, and an outer surface disposed opposite the inner surface and extending from the first end to the second end (Avey, Figure 11),
the inner surface of the wear sleeve (320”’) engages with the suction cap (302”),
the outer surface of the wear sleeve (320”’) engages with the fluid end body (206(3)), and
the wear sleeve (320”’) includes a flange portion (3283, radial extension) (Avey, [0106] and [0108], Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 3
Avey discloses the fluid end of claim 1, wherein the inner surface of the wear sleeve (320”’), at the second end, is coplanar with an inner surface of the bore (2224(3)) that is axially adjacent to the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 21
Avey discloses a fluid end of a pump (Avey, [0001], Figure 11), comprising:
a fluid end body (206(3)) defining a bore (2224(3)) extending along a central axis of the fluid end (Avey, Figure 11);
a suction cap (302”) received within the bore (2224(3)) of the fluid end body (206(3)) (Avey, Figure 11); and
a wear sleeve (320”’) radially disposed between the fluid end body (206(3)) and the suction cap (302”) (Avey, Figure 11), wherein:
the wear sleeve (320”’) circumferentially surrounds the suction cap (302”),
the wear sleeve (320”’) is received within the fluid end body (206(3)),
the wear sleeve (320”’) is an L-shaped sleeve (Avey, Figure 11) that defines a first end, a second end opposite the first end along the central axis, an inner surface extending from the first end to the second end, and an outer surface disposed opposite the inner surface and extending from the first end to the second end (Avey, Figure 11),
the inner surface of the wear sleeve (320”’) engages with the suction cap (302”),
the outer surface of the wear sleeve (320”’) engages with the fluid end body (206(3)), and
the wear sleeve (320”’) includes a flange portion (3283, radial extension) (Avey, [0108], Figure 11).
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840.
Regarding Claim 9
Avey discloses the fluid end of claim 1. Avey further discloses that the wear sleeve (320”’) includes a tubular portion extending from the second end towards the first end (Avey, Figure 11), where the thickness of the tubular portion is less than the thickness of the flange portion (Avey, Figure 11).
While Avey does not explicitly disclose an aspect ratio of a thickness of the tubular portion to a thickness of the flange portion lies in a range between ¼ and ½, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey such that an aspect ratio of a thickness of the tubular portion to a thickness of the flange portion lies in a range between ¼ and ½ since absent evidence of criticality, when "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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 10
Avey teaches the fluid end of claim 9. Avey further discloses that an axial length of the flange portion is less than the axial length of the tubular portion.
While Avey does not explicitly disclose that a ratio of an axial length of the flange portion to an axial length of the tubular portion lies in a range between 0.1 and 0.2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey such that a ratio of an axial length of the flange portion to an axial length of the tubular portion lies in a range between 0.1 and 0.2 since absent evidence of criticality, when "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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of Jiang, CN 221957773 U (hereafter referred to as Jiang II).
Regarding Claim 2
Avey discloses the fluid end of claim 1. However, Avey does not disclose that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a first chamfered surface proximal to the first end of the wear sleeve, and wherein the first chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis.
Jiang II teaches a wear sleeve (140), where the thickness of the wear sleeve (140) decreases gradually in the direction in which the wear sleeve (14) extends toward a plunger (120) [therefore the surfaces of the wear sleeve are chamfered] (Jiang II, Figures 3 and 4).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey such that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a first chamfered surface proximal to the first end of the wear sleeve since this would provide the advantage of an improved sealing arrangement.
While Avey and Jiang II do not explicitly disclose that the first chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey/Jiang II such that the first chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, since absent evidence of criticality, when "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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 4
Avey discloses the fluid end of claim 1. However, Avey does not disclose that the outer surface of the wear sleeve includes a second chamfered surface proximal to the second end of the wear sleeve, and wherein the second chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis.
Jiang II teaches a wear sleeve (140), where the thickness of the wear sleeve (140) decreases gradually in the direction in which the wear sleeve (14) extends toward a plunger (120) [therefore the surfaces of the wear sleeve are chamfered] (Jiang II, Figures 3 and 4).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey such that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a second chamfered surface proximal to the first end of the wear sleeve since this would provide the advantage of an improved sealing arrangement.
While Avey and Jiang II do not explicitly disclose that the second chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey/Jiang II such that the second chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, since absent evidence of criticality, when "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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of Belshan et al., US 2023/0130824.
Regarding Claim 5
Avey discloses the fluid end of claim 1, wherein the fluid end further includes a first sealing element (326, seal ring) engaging with the wear sleeve (320”’) and the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 11).
However, Avey does not explicitly disclose that the fluid end body defines a second circumferential notch in communication with the first circumferential notch and the bore, wherein the first sealing element is disposed within the second circumferential notch.
Belshan teaches a fluid end body (14, block) that defines a second circumferential notch (94, seal groove for receiving an annular seal (103)) in communication with the bore (30) (Belshan, Figures 2 and 4A-4B), and wherein the fluid end further includes: a first sealing element (103) disposed within the second circumferential notch (94) and engaging with a tubular sleeve (52a/52b, sleeve cartridge body) (Belshan, Figures 4a-4b), wherein the first sealing element (103) is disposed on an outer surface of the tubular sleeve (52b) (Belshan, [0051], Figures 4A-4B).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second circumferential notch in communication with the first circumferential notch and the bore, wherein a first sealing element is disposed within the second circumferential notch and engaging with the tubular sleeve as taught by Belshan with the fuel end body of Avey since this would provide the advantage of an improved sealing arrangement that reduces and/or prevents fluid from leaking between the sleeve and the fluid end block (Belshan, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 6
Avey and Belshan teach the fluid end of claim 5. While Avey and Belshan do not explicitly disclose a first back-up ring disposed within the second circumferential notch, Avey further teaches embodiments in which a second back-up ring (seal “backing up” seal 3251 and seal 321) is disposed within the circumferential groove (Avey, [0078]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the back-up ring as taught by Avey within the second circumferential notch of Avery/Belshan since this would provide the advantage of back-up sealing protection in the event of seal member failure.
Regarding Claim 7
Avey and Belshan teach the fluid end of claim 5 further comprising: a second sealing element (3021) disposed within a circumferential groove (single groove) defined at an outer surface of the suction cap (302”) and engaging with the wear sleeve (320”’), wherein the first sealing element (326) and the second sealing element (3021) are disposed on opposite sides of the wear sleeve (320”’) (Avey, [0107], Figure 11).
While Avey and Belshan do not explicitly disclose a second back-up ring disposed within the circumferential groove of the suction cap, Avey further teaches embodiments in which a second back-up ring (seal “backing up” seal 3251 and seal 321) is disposed within the circumferential groove (Avey, [0078]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the back-up ring as taught by Avey within the circumferential groove of the suction cap of Avery/Belshan since this would provide the advantage of back-up sealing protection in the event of seal member failure.
Claim(s) 8, 12-13, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of Jiang, CN 214698292 U.
Regarding Claim 8
Avey discloses the fluid end of claim 1. However, Avey does not explicitly disclose that the wear sleeve is made of a metallic material having a hardness value of at least 40 C on the Rockwell Scale of Hardness.
Jiang teaches a fluid end that comprises a wear sleeve (12) made of a metallic material having a hardness value of at least 40 C on the Rockwell Scale of Hardness (tungsten) (Jiang, [0044], Figures 2-3).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey such that the wear sleeve is made of a metallic material having a hardness value of at least 40 C on the Rockwell Scale of Hardness as taught by Jiang since this would provide the advantage of increased wear resistance (Jiang, [0044], Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 12
Avey discloses a fluid end of a pump, comprising:
a fluid end body (206(2)) defining a bore (2224(2)) extending along a central axis of the fluid end and a first circumferential notch (450’) extending along the central axis and in communication with the bore (2224(2)), wherein a first axial length of the bore (2224(2)) is greater than a second axial length of the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 10);
a suction cap (302”) received within the bore (2224(2)) of the fluid end body (Avey, Figure 10), the suction cap (302”) defining a circumferential groove (single groove) at an outer surface thereof (Avey, [0107], Figure 10); and
a tubular sleeve (320”) radially disposed between the fluid end body (206(2)) and the suction cap (302”) (Avey, Figure 10), wherein the tubular sleeve (320”) circumferentially surrounds the circumferential groove (single groove) of the suction cap (302”) (Avey, [0107], Figure 10); and
a sealing element (3021) disposed within the circumferential groove (single groove) of the suction cap (302”) and engaging with the tubular sleeve (320”) (Avey, Figure 10).
Avey further discloses that the fluid end body is made of metal (Avey, [0087]). However, Avey does not explicitly disclose that the tubular sleeve is coupled with the fluid end body to form a metal-to-metal seal.
Jiang teaches a fluid end body (10) that comprises a wear sleeve (12) made of a metallic material (tungsten) having a hardness and wear resistance greater than the material of the fluid end body (Jiang, [0044], Figures 2-3).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fluid end of Avey such that the wear sleeve is made of a metallic material having a hardness and wear resistance greater than the material of the fluid end body as taught by Jiang since this would provide the advantage of increased wear resistance (Jiang, [0044], Figure 3). Therefore, the combination of Avey and Jiang teaches a tubular sleeve coupled with the fluid end body to form a metal-to-metal seal.
Regarding Claim 13
Avey and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 12. Avey further discloses that the tubular sleeve (320”) defines a first end, a second end opposite the first end along the central axis, an inner surface extending from the first end to the second end, and an outer surface disposed opposite the inner surface and extending from the first end to the second end (Avey, Figure 10), wherein the inner surface of the tubular sleeve (320”) engages with the suction cap (302”), and wherein the outer surface of the tubular sleeve (320”) engages with the fluid end body (206(2)) to form the metal to metal seal (Avey, Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 15
Avey and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 13, wherein the inner surface of the wear sleeve (320”), at the second end, is coplanar with an inner surface of the bore (2224(2)) that is axially adjacent to the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 19
Avey and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 12. Jiang further teaches that the tubular sleeve (320”) is made of a metallic material having a hardness value of at least 40C on the Rockwell Scale of Hardness (tungsten) (Jiang, [0044]).
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of Jiang, CN 214698292 U, and further in view of Jiang, CN 221957773 U (hereafter referred to as Jiang II).
Regarding Claim 14
Avey and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 13. However, Avey and Jiang do not disclose that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a first chamfered surface proximal to the first end of the wear sleeve, and wherein the first chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis.
Jiang II teaches a wear sleeve (140), where the thickness of the wear sleeve (140) decreases gradually in the direction in which the wear sleeve (14) extends toward a plunger (120) [therefore the surfaces of the wear sleeve are chamfered] (Jiang II, Figures 3 and 4).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey such that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a first chamfered surface proximal to the first end of the wear sleeve since this would provide the advantage of an improved sealing arrangement.
While Avey, Jiang, and Jiang II do not explicitly disclose that the first chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey/Jiang/Jiang II such that the first chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, since absent evidence of criticality, when "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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 16
Avey and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 13. However, Avey and Jiang do not disclose that the outer surface of the wear sleeve includes a second chamfered surface proximal to the second end of the wear sleeve, and wherein the second chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis.
Jiang II teaches a wear sleeve (140), where the thickness of the wear sleeve (140) decreases gradually in the direction in which the wear sleeve (14) extends toward a plunger (120) [therefore the surfaces of the wear sleeve are chamfered] (Jiang II, Figures 3 and 4).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey such that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a second chamfered surface proximal to the first end of the wear sleeve since this would provide the advantage of an improved sealing arrangement.
While Avey, Jiang, and Jiang II do not explicitly disclose that the second chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey/Jiang/Jiang II such that the second chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, since absent evidence of criticality, when "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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of Jiang, CN 214698292 U, and further in view of Hilliard, US 12,085,087.
Regarding Claim 11
Avey discloses the fluid end of claim 1. However, Avey does not disclose that the wear sleeve is coupled with the fluid end body via an interference fit that forms a metal-to-metal seal.
Jiang teaches a fluid end with a wear sleeve coupled with the fluid end body via an interference fit (Jiang, Abstract) that forms a metal-to-metal seal (Jiang, [0044]). At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fluid end of Avey such that the wear sleeve is made of a metallic material as taught by Jiang since this would provide the advantage of increased wear resistance (Jiang, [0044], Figure 3).
However, Avey and Jiang do not explicitly teach that the tubular sleeve is coupled with the suction cap via a slip fit or a clearance fit.
Hilliard teaches an assembly in which a tubular sleeve (27) is coupled with an internal element via slip fit (Hilliard, Column 5, Lines 60-66). At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fluid end of Avey/Jiang such that the tubular sleeve is coupled to the suction cap via a slip fit as is taught by Hilliard since this would provide the advantage of ease of assembly.
Regarding Claim 20
Avey and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 12, wherein the tubular sleeve is coupled with the fluid end body via an interference fit (Jiang, Abstract) that forms the metal to metal seal (Jiang, [0044]).
However, Avey and Jiang do not explicitly teach that the tubular sleeve is coupled with the suction cap via a slip fit or a clearance fit.
Hilliard teaches an assembly in which a tubular sleeve (27) is coupled with an internal element via slip fit (Hilliard, Column 5, Lines 60-66). At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fluid end of Avey/Jiang such that the tubular sleeve is coupled to the suction cap via a slip fit since this would provide the advantage of ease of assembly.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of Jiang, CN 214698292 U, and further in view of Belshan et al., US 2023/0130824.
Regarding Claim 17
Avey and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 12, Avey further discloses that the fluid end further includes a first sealing element (326, seal ring) engaging with the tubular sleeve (320”) and the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 11), and Jiang teaches a sealing ring arranged between the tubular sleeve (12) and the fluid end body (10) (Jiang, Figure 3) such that the first sealing element and the sealing element disposed within the circumferential groove of the suction cap are disposed on opposite sides of the tubular sleeve.
However, Avey and Jiang do not explicitly teach that the fluid end body defines a second circumferential notch in communication with the first circumferential notch and the bore, wherein the fluid end further includes: a first sealing element disposed within the second circumferential notch and engaging with the tubular sleeve; and a first back-up ring disposed within the second circumferential notch.
Belshan teaches a fluid end body (14, block) that defines a second circumferential notch (94, seal groove for receiving an annular seal (103)) in communication with the bore (30) (Belshan, Figures 2 and 4A-4B), and wherein the fluid end further includes: a first sealing element (103) disposed within the second circumferential notch (94) and engaging with a tubular sleeve (52a/52b, sleeve cartridge body) (Belshan, Figures 4a-4b), wherein the first sealing element (103) is disposed on an outer surface of the tubular sleeve (52b) (Belshan, [0051], Figures 4A-4B).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second circumferential notch in communication with the first circumferential notch and the bore, wherein a first sealing element is disposed within the second circumferential notch and engaging with the tubular sleeve as taught by Belshan with the fuel end body of Avey/Jiang since this would provide the advantage of an improved sealing arrangement that reduces and/or prevents fluid from leaking between the sleeve and the fluid end block (Belshan, [0051]).
While Avey, Jiang, and Belshan do not explicitly disclose a first back-up ring disposed within the second circumferential notch, Avey further teaches embodiments in which a second back-up ring (seal “backing up” seal 3251 and seal 321) is disposed within the circumferential groove (Avey, [0078]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the back-up ring as taught by Avey within the second circumferential notch of Avery/Jiang/Belshan since this would provide the advantage of back-up sealing protection in the event of seal member failure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103.
New claim 21 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights