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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claim 1 is independent.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
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.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIKAMI et al. US 2020/0317059 (hereinafter “MIKAMI) in view of KOBAYASHI et al. US 2022/0209698 (hereinafter “KOBAYASHI”).
As to claim 1, MIKAMI teaches a control device for a motor (paragraph 0040 “The control device 26 controls the driving force of the vehicle 10” Examiner interpreted “driving force of the vehicle” to be the motor. And Fig. 1 depicts the control device connected to the motor), comprising:
a processor for generating a control command for power supplied to a coil of the motor (paragraph 0047 “the driving force control unit 54 controls operation of the switch element (not shown) of the inverters 42, 46 and controls operation of the engine" Fig. 1 shows the control device encompasses the control unit. Examiner interpreted “control device” as the processor, where the control device (processor) is the computational core that executes the control logic. And Fig. 1 shows the motor directly connected to the inverter, and the motor directly connected to the engine); and
an inverter circuit for controlling, based on the control command of the processor, the power supplied to the coil of the motor (paragraph 0081 “the control device 26 configured to control the operation of the switch 40 and the switch 48 (240); the inverter 42 (driving circuit) disposed in the power path 32 in order to drive the motor 14” and Fig. 3 shows the inverter circuit electrically connected to both the control device (processor) and the motor. Examiner interpreted “control device” as processor.); and
a switching circuit disposed between the inverter circuit and the coil of the motor (paragraph 0055 “A gate switch 140 (hereinafter, also referred to as switch 140) is formed by a switch element 140 a that is disposed in the power path of each phase between the rear-side inverter 42 and the rear motor 14” Examiner interpreted “gate switch” as switching circuit); and
configured to switch between an energized state where the inverter circuit and the coil are energized and a non-energized state where the inverter circuit is electrically disconnected from the coil (paragraph 0059 “The gate switch 140 illustrated in FIG. 3 can disconnect the power path of each phase between the rear-side inverter 42 and the rear motor 14” Furthermore, (paragraph 0055 “switch 140 operates in accordance with the ON/OFF signal that is output from the control device 26.”) Examiner interpreted the state of disconnection between the inverter and the motor as non-energized state, because when the gate switch (switching circuit) is configured to be off, (paragraph 0059 “the current does not circulate between the rear-side inverter 42 and the rear motor 14”),
the processor being configured to give the switching circuit a first disconnection command to switch from the energized state to the non-energized state (paragraph 0055 “Each switch element 140 a provided to the switch 140 operates in accordance with the ON/OFF signal that is output from the control device 26” Examiner interpreted “switch” as switching circuit). And examiner interpreted “ON/OFF signal” as first disconnection command. The first disconnection command given to the switch (switching circuit) brings about the non-energized state, because when the switch (switching circuit) is configured to be off, (paragraph 0059 “the current does not circulate between the rear-side inverter 42 and the rear motor 14”)).
But MIKAMI does not explicitly teach when rotation of the motor is detected in a state where power is not supplied to the coil of the motor.
However, KOBAYASHI teaches when rotation of the motor is detected (paragraph 0007 “the control device of a brushless DC motor including a phase angle detection unit detecting a rotation of the rotor” Fig. 2 shows the microcomputer, which examiner interpreted as processor, encompassing the phase angle detection unit. And since phase angle detection unit comprises (paragraph 0033 “Hall sensors 21 U, 21 V, and 21 W of the respective phases of U, V, and W are arranged on the brushless DC motor 2 at an interval of a phase angle of 120 degrees”) to calculate a (paragraph 0033 “phase angle signal”) the rotational position of the motor can be detected by the processor) in a state where the power is not supplied to the coil (paragraph 0034 “For example, the microcomputer 13 of the motor controller 9 outputs an operation state (normal or abnormal) of the motor to the side of the host controller 8”) Examiner interpreted abnormal operation state to reasonably include rotor rotation when power is not supplied to the coil of the motor, because the microcontroller of the motor controller has knowledge of both the commanded coil energization state (paragraph 0036 “the driving signal… is selectively output to the respective switching element UH, UL, VH, VL, WH, and WL, which are then turned on. Thereby, the coils 16 U, 16 V, and 16 W of the respective phases are sequentially energized while repeating an ON period of 120 degrees and an OFF period of 60 degrees on the positive side or the negative side with the phase being dephased by 120 degrees.”) and the hall sensor outputs.
MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to motor control devices.
Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the motor control device, as taught by MIKAMI, and incorporate the motor rotation detection and operation state detection, as taught by KOBAYASHI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to improve control decisions in a motor control device, particularly in operating conditions where motor behavior is difficult to determine, as suggested by KOBAYASHI (paragraph 5).
As to claim 3, the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI teach all limitations of the base claim, as outlined above.
MIKAMI further teaches wherein the switching circuit includes a plurality of switching elements (paragraph 55 “As the switch element 140 a , an IGBT bidirectional switch formed by IGBTs and diodes as illustrated in FIG. 8A or 8B can be used, for example.” And Fig. 3 explicitly shows the gate switch 140 depicted as three separate switching elements).
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIKAMI et al. US 2020/0317059 (hereinafter “MIKAMI) in view of KOBAYASHI et al. US 2022/0209698 (hereinafter “KOBAYASHI”) in further view of Hahn et al. US7952314B2
(hereinafter “Hahn”).
As to claim 2, the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI teach all of the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
MIKAMI further teaches the control device for the motor according to claim 1, comprising:
at least one switching contact unit disposed between the inverter circuit and a battery (MIKAMI paragraph 0045 “The switches 40, 48 are contactors that switch electric connection/disconnection of the power paths 32, 36, and operate in accordance with an ON/OFF signal that is output from the control device 26.” Examiner interpreted “switches 40, 48” to both be switching contact units. And Fig. 1 shows both switches (switching contact units) configured between the inverter and the battery).
wherein the processor is configured to:
generate a control command indicating a drive command or a stop command for the motor (paragraph 0044 “Switch elements provided to the inverters 42, 46 operate in accordance with a driving signal that is output from the control device 26” Examiner interpreted “driving signal” as control command that indicates a drive command or a stop command for the motor (paragraph 0081 “the inverter 42 (driving circuit) disposed in the power path 32 in order to drive the motor 14”). Examiner interpreted the “control device” as the processor), and generate the control command with respect to the inverter circuit (paragraph 0044 “Switch elements provided to the inverters 42, 46 operate in accordance with a driving signal that is output from the control device 26” Examiner interpreted “driving signal” as control command that indicates a drive command or a stop command. Examiner interpreted the “control device” as the processor.)
switch a connection state between the inverter circuit and the battery, and operate the switching contact unit (paragraph 0045 “The switches 40, 48 are contactors that switch electric connection/disconnection of the power paths 32, 36, and operate in accordance with an ON/OFF signal that is output from the control device 26”. Examiner interpreted “control device” as processor. And the switches (switching contact units) are shown in Fig. 1 to be on the power path, between the inverter circuit and the battery);
give the switching circuit the disconnection command (paragraph 0059 “The gate switch 140 illustrated in FIG. 3 can disconnect the power path of each phase between the rear-side inverter 42 and the rear motor 14” Examiner interpreted “gate switch” as switching circuit. And (paragraph 0055 “Each switch element 140 a provided to the switch 140 operates in accordance with the ON/OFF signal that is output from the control device 26.” Examiner interpreted “ON/OFF signal” as disconnection command.) and give the switching contact unit a disconnection command to disconnect connection between the inverter circuit and the battery (paragraph 0051 “the switch control unit 58 outputs the OFF signal to the rear-side switch 40” Examiner interpreted “OFF signal to the rear-side switch” to be disconnection command. Examiner interpreted “switch” as switching contact unit. And Fig. 1 shows the “switch control unit” encompassed by the “control device”, which examiner interpreted as processor. And (paragraph 0045 “The switches 40, 48 are contactors that switch electric connection/disconnection of the power paths 32, 36”) and Fig. 1 shows the switches (switching contact units) disposed in the power path between the inverter circuit and the battery)
KOBAYASHI further teaches when the rotation of the motor is detected (paragraph 0007 “the control device of a brushless DC motor including a phase angle detection unit detecting a rotation of the rotor” and Fig. 2 shows the microcomputer, which examiner interpreted as processor, encompassing the phase angle detection unit. And since phase angle detection unit comprises (paragraph 0033 “Hall sensors 21 U, 21 V, and 21 W of the respective phases of U, V, and W are arranged on the brushless DC motor 2 at an interval of a phase angle of 120 degrees”) to calculate a (paragraph 0033 “phase angle signal”) the rotational position of the motor can be detected by the processor) in a state where the power is not supplied to the coil (paragraph 0034 “For example, the microcomputer 13 of the motor controller 9 outputs an operation state (normal or abnormal) of the motor to the side of the host controller 8”) Examiner interpreted abnormal operation state to reasonably include rotor rotation when power is not supplied to the coil of the motor, because the microcontroller of the motor controller has knowledge of both the commanded coil energization state (paragraph 0036 “the driving signal… is selectively output to the respective switching element UH, UL, VH, VL, WH, and WL, which are then turned on. Thereby, the coils 16 U, 16 V, and 16 W of the respective phases are sequentially energized while repeating an ON period of 120 degrees and an OFF period of 60 degrees on the positive side or the negative side with the phase being dephased by 120 degrees.”) and the hall sensor outputs.
But the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI does not explicitly teach wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a first external signal from the host controller, and generate the control command in response to the first external signal;
receive a second external signal from the host controller, and operate in response to the second external signal; and
give the first disconnection command and give the second disconnection command, regardless of the first external signal and the second external signal.
However, Hahn teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
receive a first external signal from the host controller (Detailed Description of Invention, paragraph 0007 “In a step S1, the electronic control device 2 checks whether parameters C, T are specified for it by the higher-order control device 1 via an input interface 11.”) (Detailed Description of Invention, paragraph 0008 “In step S2, the electronic control device 2 receives the transmitted parameter C, T.” Examiner interpreted “transmitted parameter C, T” as first external signal. And examiner interpreted “higher-order control device” as host controller. And examiner interpreted “electronic control device” as processor.), and generate the control command in response to the first external signal (Detailed Description of Invention, paragraph 0008 “In step S3, the central processing unit 7 determines a controller characteristic for the central processing unit 7 on the basis of the parameter C.” Examiner interpreted “controller characteristic” as control command. And examiner interpreted “parameter C” as first external signal.);
receive a second external signal from the host controller (Detailed Description of Invention, paragraph 0013 “In step S7, the central processing unit 7 of the electronic control device 2 receives a setpoint value W* from the higher-order control device 1 via the input interface 11.” Examiner interpreted “setpoint value W*” as second external signal. And examiner interpreted “higher-order control device” as host controller. And examiner interpreted “electronic control device” as processor.), and operate in response to the second external signal (Detailed Description of Invention, paragraph 0016 “In a step S9, the central processing unit 7 determines a setpoint current value I* on the basis of the setpoint value W*” Examiner interpreted “determines a setpoint current value*” to be operation of the processor. And examiner interpreted “setpoint value W*” to be second external signal. And examiner interpreted “central processing unit” as processor.); and
give the first disconnection command (Detailed Description of Invention, paragraph 0022 “the central processing unit 7 transmits a first disconnection signal A1 to a first disconnection device 12.”) and give the second disconnection command (Detailed Description of Invention, paragraph 0023 “the central processing unit 7 of the electronic control device 2 additionally transmits a second disconnection signal A2 to the drive unit 3.”) regardless of the first and second external signal (Summary of Invention, paragraph 0003 “In the event that the electric motor is not in the safe state, the central processing unit of the electronic control device outputs a first disconnection signal to a first disconnection device and transmits a second disconnection signal to a central processing unit of the electronic drive unit.” Furthermore (Summary of Invention, paragraph 0007 “The safe state is preferably determined by settings stored in the electronic control device of the electrical drive system.”). Therefore, the central processing unit operates independently from the first and second external signal, when determining whether or not to give the first and second disconnection command.)
MIKAMI, KOBAYASHI, and Hahn are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They all relate to motor control devices.
Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify above motor control device, as taught by MIKAMI, and incorporate the motor rotation detection and operation state detection, as taught by KOBAYASHI, and incorporate external signaling from the host controller and sequential disconnection commands, as taught by Hahn.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve control decisions in a motor control device, particularly in operating conditions where motor behavior is difficult to determine as suggested by KOBAYASHI (paragraph 0005), and to improve modularity in a motor control device through the functional independence of its components, as suggested by Hahn (Background of Invention, paragraph 0005).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIKAMI et al. US 2020/0317059 (hereinafter “MIKAMI) in view of KOBAYASHI et al. US 2022/0209698 (hereinafter “KOBAYASHI”) in further view of Morita et al. US 2018/0321322 (hereinafter “Morita”).
As to claim 4, the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI teach all of the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
KOBAYASHI further teaches when rotation of the motor is detected (paragraph 0007 “the control device of a brushless DC motor including a phase angle detection unit detecting a rotation of the rotor” and Fig. 2 shows the microcomputer, which examiner interpreted as processor, encompassing the phase angle detection unit. And since phase angle detection unit comprises (paragraph 0033 “Hall sensors 21 U, 21 V, and 21 W of the respective phases of U, V, and W are arranged on the brushless DC motor 2 at an interval of a phase angle of 120 degrees”) to calculate a (paragraph 0033 “phase angle signal”) the rotational position of the motor can be detected by the processor) in a state where the power is not supplied to the coil (paragraph 0034 “For example, the microcomputer 13 of the motor controller 9 outputs an operation state (normal or abnormal) of the motor to the side of the host controller 8”) Examiner interpreted abnormal operation state to reasonably include rotor rotation when power is not supplied to the coil of the motor, because the microcontroller of the motor controller has knowledge of both the commanded coil energization state (paragraph 0036 “the driving signal… is selectively output to the respective switching element UH, UL, VH, VL, WH, and WL, which are then turned on. Thereby, the coils 16 U, 16 V, and 16 W of the respective phases are sequentially energized while repeating an ON period of 120 degrees and an OFF period of 60 degrees on the positive side or the negative side with the phase being dephased by 120 degrees.”) and the hall sensor outputs.
But the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI does not explicitly teach the processor being configured to output an alarm indicating issuance of the first disconnection command.
However, the combination of Morita and MIKAMI teaches the processor being configured to output an alarm (Morita paragraph 0064 “Accordingly, in the case that any one phase of at least one of the three-phase windings 17 from among the two three-phase windings 17 (17 a, 17 b) is disconnected, an abnormality is determined, and the alarm process is carried out” and the abnormality is detected by the (paragraph 0033 “abnormality diagnosing device” which is “constituted by a computer having a processor”)) indicating issuance of the first disconnection command (MIKAMI paragraph 0055 “Each switch element 140 a provided to the switch 140 operates in accordance with the ON/OFF signal that is output from the control device 26” Examiner interpreted “switch” as switching circuit). And examiner interpreted “ON/OFF signal” as first disconnection command. The first disconnection command given to the switch (switching circuit) brings about the non-energized state, because when the switch (switching circuit) is configured to be off, (paragraph 0059 “the current does not circulate between the rear-side inverter 42 and the rear motor 14”)).
MIKAMI, KOBAYASHI, and Morita are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They all relate to motor control devices.
Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above motor control device, as taught by the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI, and incorporate the alarm process, as taught by Morita.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve abnormality detection in a control device, as suggested by Morita (paragraph 5).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MIKAMI et al. US 2020/0317059 (hereinafter “MIKAMI) in view of KOBAYASHI et al. US 2022/0209698 (hereinafter “KOBAYASHI”) in further view of ICHIKAWA et al. US 2021/0006134 (hereinafter “ICHIKAWA”).
As to claim 5, the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI teach all of the limitations of the base claim as outlined above.
MIKAMI further teaches the processor being configured to control the switching circuit of the control device (paragraph 0055 “Each switch element 140 a provided to the switch 140 operates in accordance with the ON/OFF signal that is output from the control device 26” examiner interpreted “switch” as switching circuit and examiner interpreted “control device” as processor)
But the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI does not explicitly teach the control device comprising a sensor for detecting the rotation of the motor, wherein the processor is configured to receive a detection signal of the rotation of the motor from the sensor and control the switching circuit based on the detection signal.
However, ICHIWAKA teaches a sensor for detecting the rotation of the motor (paragraph 0028 “For the brushless motor, a rotation sensor for detecting the rotational position of a rotor 23 is provided.”),
wherein the processor is configured to receive a detection signal of the rotation of the motor from the sensor (paragraph 0018 “The control unit 1 a includes a control board 4 a which is a first control circuit provided with a CPU 10” Examiner interpreted “CPU” as processor) (paragraph 28 “Rotation information from the rotation sensors 17 a, 17 b is inputted to the input circuits 12 a, 12 b of the control boards 4 a, 4 b, respectively” Examiner interpreted “rotation information” to be detection signal) and control the switching circuit based on the detection signal (paragraph 0027 “When abnormality is detected, in accordance with the abnormality, the CPU 10 a turns off the switching elements for upper and lower arms for the phase in which the abnormality is detected, to interrupt supply of current for only that phase”) Examiner interpreted “switching elements” to be switching circuit. Examiner interpreted “abnormality” to include unexpected rotation of the motor, since (paragraph 0027 “The CPU 10 a has an abnormality detecting function of detecting abnormality in the sensors 8, the drive circuit”). Proving that the CPU (processor) has knowledge of both the driving signal and sensor outputs.
MIKAMI, KOBAYASHI and ICHIWAKA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They all relate to motor control devices.
Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above motor control device, as taught by the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI, and incorporate the motor rotation sensor signal, as taught by ICHIWAKA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification to achieve improvements in abnormality detection in a motor control device, as suggested by ICHIWAKA (paragraph 27).
As to claim 6, the combination of MIKAMI, KOBAYASHI, and ICHIWAKA teach all of the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
ICHIWAKA further teaches wherein the sensor includes:
A magnet disposed in a rotor of the motor (paragraph 0035 “a plurality of permanent magnets are arranged at a constant pitch on the outer circumferential surface of the rotor 23 or on the inner circumferential side near the outer circumference”); and
A magnetic sensor for detecting a magnetic field formed by the magnet (paragraph 42 “The sensor rotor 18 and the rotation sensors 17 a, 17 b are described as a magnetic sensor type”)
MIKAMI, KOBAYASHI, and ICHIWAKA are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They both relate to motor control devices.
Therefore, at the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above motor control device, as taught by the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI, and incorporate the magnetic sensor, as taught by ICHIWAKA.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve abnormality detection and circuit protection in motor control devices ICHIWAKA (paragraph 27).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi et al. JP 2020/032871 (hereinafter “Hitachi”) in view of MIKAMI et al. US 2020/0317059 (hereinafter “MIKAMI) in further view of KOBAYASHI et al. US 2022/0209698 (hereinafter “KOBAYASHI”).
As to claim 7, Hitachi teaches an electric propulsion device for a ship (paragraph 0001, line 1 “The present invention mainly relates to an electric propulsion device used for a ship”), comprising;
the motor (paragraph 0007, line 3-4 “The electric propulsion device includes an electric motor”); and
a propeller driven by the motor (paragraph 0007, line 4-5 “The electric motor drives the propeller.”).
But Hitachi does not explicitly teach the control device according to claim 1 for controlling the motor.
However, the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI teach all limitations of the base claim, as outlined above.
Hitachi, MIKAMI, and KOBAYASHI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and functional similarities. They all relate to motor control devices for a vehicle.
Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above propulsion device for a ship, as taught by Hitachi, and incorporate the motor control device, as taught by the combination of MIKAMI and KOBAYASHI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve overcurrent protection in a vehicle, as suggested by MIKAMI (paragraph 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and listed on the attached PTO Form 892 but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
TSUMURA et al. US 2022/0021318 A1 teaches a motor control device, motor rotation detection, inverter circuit and motor disconnection (Fig. 1, paragraph 0001, 0009, and 0031).
POKKINEN et al. US 2019/0326845 A1 teaches drive control for a motor and over-current protection (Fig. 2, paragraph 0035 and 0051).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)270-1582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30am to 5:00pm 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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at (571) 272-4105. 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.
/A.D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights