Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 04/06/26 has been entered. Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 10, and 12 – 22 remain pending and under examination. The amendments to claim 1 find support in at least page 4, line 9 – 13.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 – 2, 4, 6 – 9, 14 – 15, 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2015/0283614) in view of Yang (CN107671294, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claims 1 – 2, 4, 6 and 21, Wu teaches a method of additive manufacturing and hot isostatic pressing [0038]. Wu teaches that the method includes printing a gradient density shell [0041, 0058] (interpreted as claimed porous exterior) and keeping a loose powder material unconsolidated within the cavity of the shell (interpreted as the loose powder interior component) [0042]. Wu further discloses that shell has multiple layers of porosity, meeting the limitation of claim 6, which range from 100% density down to at least 80%, which overlaps with the claimed range [0058] of claim 4. Wherein said porosity of 80% would be reasonably expected to allow gas to permeate into it.
Wu teaches that the component is produced by SLM or EBM [0058], meeting the limitations of claim 1 and claim 2. The hot isostatic pressing includes heating and pressing and forms a densified component [0038], encompassing/meeting the claimed limitation of performing sintering of the exterior and interior simultaneously.
The exterior and interior can have the same composition because as shown in Fig 2d, the exterior is printed from the same powder material as the interior and printed around the interior.
Wu does not expressly teach the volume percent of the outer layer, but states that the thickness can be controlled to be thin or thick [0077]
Yang teaches a method of additive manufacturing and hot isostatic pressing [Title]. Yang teaches that the method includes printing a porous casing and keeping a porous powder material unconsolidated within the cavity of the porous cavity [0009]. Yang shows that the component can take the shape of a cylinder [Fig 1] and states that the thickness of object can be 0 – 10 mm while the thickness of outer layer can be 0.5 – 2 mm [0035]. Based on the shape of a cylinder, the outer layer would comprise, for instance, approximately 19 vol% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 1 and claim 21.
Total volume of cylinder (10 mm diameter) = 78.54
Volume of interior (9 mm diameter w/ outer thickness being 0.5 mm) = 63.62
Volume of exterior = 14.92 mm
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have controlled the relative vol% range of the shell/capsule of the component of Wu to the range suggested by the teachings of Yang. Yang and Wu are directed to the same field of endeavor of additively manufacturing shell/capsules with loose powder disposed therein followed by hot isostatic pressing. In particular, the capsules of both Yang and Wu are produced by additive manufacturing and serve the same purpose of protection/encapsulation during HIP. Moreover, Wu states that the thickness can be controlled to be thin or thick [0077]. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 I). "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wu teaches that the density following hot isostatic pressing is 95% or more [0068], which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wu does not expressly state that the final component has a density gradient. However, given that Wu discloses forming a component with a gradient density/porosity [See Fig 12, 0068]. There is a reasonable expectation that following the HIP process there would be some difference in density between the exterior which began at 100% density and the interior which can have a porosity as low as 30% [0074].
Regarding claim 9, Wu in view of Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wu teaches that the powder composition can be a metal or metal alloy [0077]. Wu does not expressly state that the compositions are independently selected, however, the limitation does not expressly require that the compositions are different. As such, the compositions of the interior and exterior being the same would fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation. That is, the step of “independently selecting” a composition is a mental process which alone cannot distinguish the method from the prior art when the prior art and the method arrive at the same process of selecting the same composition for the interior and exterior.
Regarding claim 14, Wu in view of Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wu teaches that the exterior layer can have a thickness as low as 0.025 – 1 mm [0068], which overlaps with the claimed range, specifically addresses that the thickness can be controlled to be thin or thick [0077]
Regarding claim 15, Wu in view of Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wu shows the shell can be formed around the loose powder [Fig 2D].
Regarding claim 22, Wu in view of Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wu states that the shape of component can be cylindrical [0076], meeting the claimed limitation
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2015/0283614) in view of Yang (CN107671294, using espacenet translation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Hann (US2016/0279708)
Regarding claim 10, Wu in view of Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 9. Wu does not expressly teach that metal powder is unweldable. However, Wu does state that the metal powders can be a metal alloy [0077].
Hann teaches a method of forming a can via additive manufacturing [Title]. Hann teaches that the can is filled with metal powder and subjected to hot isostatic pressing [Fig 1.]. The additive manufacturing process is laser sintering or electron beam melting of a powder bed [0019]. Hann teaches that the can/shell can be a superalloy alloy such as mar-m-247 [0025]. The fill material may also be this composition [0025, 0028]. Mar-M-247 being a known ‘unweldable’ superalloy, as evidenced by Li (NPL) cited with the previous action on 04/01/26.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used Mar-M-247 as the metal alloy material in the method of Wu in view of Yang, as disclosed by Hann. Wu and Hann are directed to the same field of endeavor of additively manufacturing a can/shell component and filling it with loose powder to conduct hot isostatic pressing. Moreover, Wu and Hann both produce the can/shell by powder bed additive manufacturing with laser beam sintering/electron beam melting and Wu expressly notes that metal alloys can be used in the process. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results when combining the teachings.
Regarding claim 16, Wu in view of Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 9. Wu does not teach adding loose powder to the interior volume.
Hann teaches a method of forming a can via additive manufacturing [Title]. Hann teaches that the can is filled with metal powder and subjected to hot isostatic pressing [Fig 1.]. The additive manufacturing process is laser sintering or electron beam melting of a powder bed [0019]. Hann teaches that the can/shell can either be formed and the trapped powder left in place as the interior [0027] (such as in Wu) or another powder can be placed into the hollow portion [0028]. Hann states that in this scenario the metal powder in the interior can be selected “based on one or more of strength, durability, and useful life, particularly at high temperatures, although it should be appreciated that the metal powder may also be selected based on the intended function of the article being formed.” [0028]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Wu in view of Yang with the disclosure of Hann of placing a loose powder into the hollowed interior area/cavity of the capsule/shell. Wu and Hann are directed to the same field of endeavor of additively manufacturing a can/shell component and filling with loose powder to conduct hot isostatic pressing. Moreover, Wu and Hann both produce the can/shell by powder bed additive manufacturing with laser beam sintering/electron beam melting. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Hann to Wu. Additionally, a person of ordinary skill and creativity in the art would appreciate that the modifying the method of Wu, as taught by Hann, would allow for a greater selection of compositions than merely the composition used to produce the cavity. This would allow for the loose powder to be selected based on desired properties such as strength, durability, and useful life, particularly at high temperatures [0028].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2015/0283614), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Poetschke (US2019/0185972, cited in the previous office action)
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wu does not expressly disclose using sintered cemented carbide powder.
Poetschke teaches using sintered cemented carbide granulate for additive manufacturing [Title]. Poetschke discloses that the sintered cemented carbide granules disclosed can be used in a variety of additive manufacturing processes including powder bed based such as binder jetting, laser sintering/melting, or electron beam melting [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Wu and Poetschke to use the sintered cemented carbide of Poetschke in the method of Wu to achieve predictable results. Wu and Poetschke are directed to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Poetschke to be pertinent to the invention of Wu. Moreover, because Poetschke teaches that the sintered cemented carbide can be used in additive manufacturing such laser sintering/melting or electron beam melting, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings to achieve predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2015/0283614) in view of Yang (CN107671294, using espacenet translation and Poetschke (US2019/0185972, cited in the previous office action), as evidenced by Sandvik (“Cemented Carbide”, NPL, 2022)
Regarding claim 13, Wu in view of Yang and Poetschke teaches the invention as applied in claim 12. Wu does not expressly teach the apparent density. However, Wu teaches that the loose powder has a theoretical density ranging from ~30% to less than 80% [0067, 0041]. As evidenced by Sandvick cemented carbide (WC-Co) has a density ranging from ~15.0 – 13.0 g/cm3 [Page 13].
As such, the powder would have an apparent density of ~3.9 g/cm3 – 12 g/cm3, which overlaps with the claimed range, depending upon cobalt content and theoretical density desired.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 I). "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
Claims 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2015/0283614) in view of Yang (CN107671294, using espacenet translation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Di Serio (WO2018/087464, using espacenet translation).
Regarding claims 17 – 20, Wu in view of Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Wu as-modified does not expressly teach forming structures within the interior volume.
Di Serio teaches a method of additively manufacturing a component followed by hot isostatic pressing [Title]. Di serio teaches that the component formed includes a solid preform of externals walls with residual powder inside [0012]. Additionally, Di Serio teaches that a lattice structure including a honeycomb network can be included [0014]. Di Serio states that this structure has the benefit of preventing buckling of the walls during isostatic pressing and also facilitates heat conduction to the loose powder [0037]. Wherein the honeycomb lattice network meets the limitations of “lattice structure” (claim 17), the lattice structure contacting the outer layer and spanning the interior (claim 18), loose powder surrounding the lattice (claim 19), and printing a conduit in the interior channel (Claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the component/process of Wu to include a lattice honeycomb structure in the interior of the component, as described by Di Serio. Wu and Di Serio are directed to the same field of endeavor of hot isostatic pressing of additively manufactured components, including printing of the shell. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Di Serio to be pertinent to Wu. Moreover, Wu teaches producing various shapes via additive manufacturing [0076] including cans with internal structure [Fig 16] and as such, would have had a reasonable expectation of success in including the interior structure described by Di Serio. Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Di Serio because of the benefits described including preventing buckling and facilitating heat conduction.
Claims 1, 3, 8 – 9, 14 – 15 and 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN107671294, using espacenet translation)
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 21, Yang teaches a method of additive manufacturing and hot isostatic pressing [Title]. Yang teaches that the method includes printing a porous casing (interpreted as claimed porous exterior) and keeping a porous powder material unconsolidated within the cavity of the porous cavity (interpreted as the loose powder interior component) [0009]. Yang further discloses that the porous casing/sheath has micropores for allowing gas to be discharged [0027], meeting the claimed limitation of the porous exterior having interconnected porosity such that permeated gas can escape.
The printing method of the porous casing can include inkjet printing of bonding material [0029], meeting the claimed limitation of binder jetting of claim 1 and claim 3. The exterior and interior can have the same composition because as shown in Fig 3a, the exterior is printed from the same powder material as the interior and printed around the interior.
The hot isostatic pressing includes heating and pressing and forms a densified component [0038], encompassing/meeting the claimed limitation of performing sintering of the exterior and interior simultaneously.
Lastly, Yang shows that the component can take the shape of a cylinder [Fig 1] and states that the thickness of the object can be 0 – 10 mm while the thickness of outer layer can be 0.5 – 2 mm [0035]. Based on the shape of a cylinder, the outer layer would comprise approximately 19 vol% or more, which overlaps with the claimed range of claim 1 and claim 21.
Total volume of cylinder (10 mm diameter) = 78.54
Volume of interior (9 mm diameter w/ outer thickness being 0.5 mm) = 63.62
Volume of exterior = 14.92 mm
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05 I). "The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05 III A).
Regarding claim 8, Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yang suggests/shows that the interior and exterior have the same composition [Fig 3a]. However, Yang also teaches that the outer layer can be infiltrated with a different material [0031]. Therefore, the exterior can have a different density from the interior, due to the inclusion of other material, meeting the limitation of a density gradient being present.
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yang teaches that the powder composition can be a metal or metal alloy [0030]. Yang does not expressly state that the compositions are independently selected, however, the limitation does not expressly require that the compositions are different. As such, the compositions of the interior and exterior being the same would fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation. That is, the step of “independently selecting” a composition is a mental process which alone cannot distinguish the method from the prior art when the prior art and the method arrive at the same process of selecting the same composition for the interior and exterior.
Regarding claim 14, Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yang teaches that the outer layer can have a thickness of about 0.5 mm to about 2.0 mm [0035], which overlaps with the claimed range.
With regards to the overlapping ranges taught, “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)” (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Regarding claim 15, Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yang shows that the outer layer is formed around the interior [Fig 3a], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 22, Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yang shows that the formed shape can be a cylinder [0034, Fig 1a], wherein an interior volume would have a curved surface.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN107671294, using espacenet translation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Wu (US2015/0283614).
Regarding claim 7, Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yang does not expressly teach the density of the component following hot isostatic pressing. However, Yang notes that hot isostatic pressing results in achieving a density that is close to theoretical density.
Wu teaches a method of additive manufacturing and hot isostatic pressing [0038]. Wu teaches that the method includes printing a gradient density shell [0041, 0058] and keeping a loose powder material unconsolidated within the cavity of the shell. Wu teaches that the density following hot isostatic pressing is 95% or more [0068], which falls within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have controlled the theoretical density of the component following HIP in the process of Yang to be 95% or more, as disclosed by Wu. Yang and Wu are directed to the same field of endeavor of additively manufacturing shell/capsules with loose powder disposed therein followed by hot isostatic pressing. Additionally, Yang explicitly notes that the density achieved following HIP is close to theoretical density. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN107671294, using espacenet translation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Poetschke (US2019/0185972, cited in the previous office action)
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yang states that powder can include metal, composite, and/or ceramic material [0030]. Yang does not expressly disclose using sintered cemented carbide.
Poetschke teaches using sintered cemented carbide granulate for additive manufacturing [Title]. Poetschke discloses that the sintered cemented carbide granulate disclosed can be used in a variety of additive manufacturing processes including powder bed based such as binder jetting, laser sintering/melting, or electron beam melting [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Yang and Poetschke to use the sintered cemented carbide of Poetschke in the method of Yang to achieve predictable results. Yang and Poetschke are directed to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Poetschke to be pertinent to the invention of Yang. Moreover, because Yang is open to a variety of materials in the additive manufacturing process and Poetschke teaches that the sintered cemented carbide can be used in additive manufacturing (including binder jetting), an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings to achieve predictable results.
Claims 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN107671294, using espacenet translation), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Di Serio (WO2018/087464, using espacenet translation).
Regarding claims 17 – 20, Yang teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Yang does not expressly teach forming structures within the interior volume.
Di Serio teaches a method of additively manufacturing a component followed by hot isostatic pressing [Title]. Di serio teaches that the component formed includes a solid preform of externals walls within residual powder inside [0012]. Additionally, Di Serio teaches that a lattice structure including a honeycomb network can be included [0014]. Di Serio states that this structure has the benefit of preventing buckling of the walls during isostatic pressing and also facilitates heat conduction to the loose powder [0037]. Wherein the honeycomb lattice network meets the limitations of “lattice structure” (claim 17), the lattice structure contacting the outer layer and spanning the interior (claim 18), loose powder surrounding the lattice (claim 19), and printing a conduit in the interior channel (Claim 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the component/process of Yang to include a lattice honeycomb structure in the interior of the component, as described by Di Serio. Yang and Di Serio are directed to the same field of endeavor of hot isostatic pressing of additively manufactured components, including printing of the shell via additive manufacturing. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have considered the teachings of Di Serio to be pertinent to Yang. Moreover, Yang teaches producing a variety of shapes via additive manufacturing and as such, a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in including an interior structure. Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Di Serio because of the benefits described including preventing buckling and facilitating heat conduction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments have overcome the previous rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes that Spink discloses that the pre-transformed material is filled into the porosity of a porous layer (interpreted as claimed porous exterior). As such, prima facie this would not suggest that interconnected porosity exists that allows gases to escape the interior volume during sintering. Therefore, the amendment and arguments thereto have overcome the previous rejection.
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 Austin M Pollock whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (11 - 8 ET).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights