DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 and 4-22 are pending, and claims 1 and 4-19 are currently under review.Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 7/28/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art does not teach the shared technical feature. This is not found persuasive because the shared technical feature is met by the prior art as explained in the below rejection sections.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/28/2026.
The species rejection of claims 8-9 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s remarks filed 7/28/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the term “strip-like”, which is indefinite because the addition of the word “like” is unclear as to what particular shape/orientation is required in the claim. It is unclear as to what constitute something that is “like” a strip and conversely it is unclear as to what would not be considered to be “like” a strip in the claim scope. The examiner interprets the claim to be met by any shape/orientation/structure that shared similarities to a strip as recognized by one of ordinary skill.
Claims 1 and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the term that the metal is selected “from the group comprising…”, which is indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(h). The examiner interprets the claimed to be met by any metal element.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites that the powder mixture is conveyed exclusively by gravity and “the rotating rollers (18) between the rotating rollers (18)”, which is indefinite because it is unclear as to how the rollers can be oriented between themselves.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 14 recites that a “feed angle measured from a center of a roller via which the powder mixture is in contact with a surface of the roller”. This is indefinite because it is unclear as to what angle is required in the claim. Angles are generally measured between two planes/lines. However, the instant claim merely specifies a point (ie. a center of a roller) relative to another point (ie. contact surface of the roller), such that a desired angle cannot be determined merely from two points. The examiner interprets the instant claim to be met by any angle involving the aforementioned points.
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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knott (US 5,972,285).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Knott discloses a process for making foamable articles from metal powder that are rolled and compacted to achieve a structure shown in fig.1 which one of ordinary skill would understand to be shaped like a flat strip [abstract, col.3 ln.55-60, fig.1]. The examiner also notes that rolling as disclosed by Knott is widely recognized to achieve flat, strip structures. Knott further teaches that the articles are made from aluminum and a gas-producing agent which results in a foamed structure after heating [abstract]. Knott does not expressly teach that rolling is performed at elevated temperatures, such that one of ordinary skill would understand rolling to be at room temperature (ie. cold) absent some specific teaching to the contrary. One of ordinary skill would further readily recognize that compaction rolling naturally requires the use of two opposing rollers.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Knott discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Knott further teaches using 6061 aluminum, which the examiner notes is a wrought alloy that must naturally be heat treated (ie. melting, etc.) during fabrication which meets the instant claim [example1].
Regarding claim 8, Knott discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the rolling of Knott would naturally result in some increase in temperature due to particle compaction/interaction, wherein said heat will naturally dissipate after roller compaction is performed (ie. after leaving the gap), which meets the limitation of cooling as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Knott discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Knott further teaches titanium hydride as the gas-producing agent [col.4 ln.30-35, fig.2].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-9, 11, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knott (US 5,972,285) in view of Reed et al. (US 3,122,434).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Knott discloses a process for making foamable articles from metal powder that are rolled and compacted to achieve a structure shown in fig.1 which one of ordinary skill would understand to be shaped like a flat strip [abstract, col.3 ln.55-60, fig.1]. The examiner also notes that rolling as disclosed by Knott is widely recognized to achieve flat, strip structures. Knott further teaches that the articles are made from aluminum and a gas-producing agent which results in a foamed structure after heating [abstract].
Knott does not expressly teach that rolling is specifically cold rolling between two rollers as claimed. Reed et al. discloses cold rolling of metal powder at room temperature as a practical and commercially operable means of producing metallic strips or sheets [col.1 ln.10-41, col.4 ln.1-5]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of Knott by utilizing cold rolling as specifically taught by Reed et al. as a practical and commercially operable means of making metal strips.
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Reed et al. further expressly depicts conveying the powder merely through gravity and the rollers that rotating in the direction of gravity [fig.1].
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Knott further teaches using 6061 aluminum, which the examiner notes is a wrought alloy that must naturally be heat treated (ie. melting, etc.) during fabrication which meets the instant claim [example1].
Regarding claim 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the rolling of the aforementioned prior art would naturally result in some increase in temperature due to particle compaction/interaction, wherein said heat will naturally dissipate after roller compaction is performed (ie. after leaving the gap), which meets the limitation of cooling as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Reed et al. further discloses that rolling can be performed in a vacuum chamber (24), which one of ordinary skill would recognize to be substantially heat insulating relative to outside of said chamber because vacuum is a known means to prevent heat from convection and conduction [fig.1]
Regarding claim 16, Knott discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Knott further teaches titanium hydride as the gas-producing agent [col.4 ln.30-35, fig.2].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knott (US 5,972,285) alone or in view of Reed et al. (US 3,122,434) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Childs et al. (US 4,419,324).
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that the level of powder above the rollers is kept constant as claimed. Childs et al. discloses a method of feeding metal particles such that a height of the particles in the hopper is kept constant and held steady by a level detection system (ie. automated), which allows for controlled extrusion of said powder [col.3 ln.17-30]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by keeping a powder level in the hopper to be constant for controlled powder extrusion/rolling as taught by Childs et al. The examiner alternatively notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the features of the prior art to arrive at the predictable result of a cold rolling method wherein powder level can be desirably controlled. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The examiner further notes that merely automating an already known activity which accomplishes the same result as the prior art is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knott (US 5,972,285) alone or in view of Reed et al. (US 3,122,434) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2015/0381020).
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a compaction pressure as claimed. Wang et al. discloses that it is known to compact aluminum powder composites under 200 to 250 MPa prior to sintering, which falls within the claimed range [0028]. The examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the features of the prior art to arrive at the predictable result of a cold rolling compaction method wherein a known compaction pressure of 200 to 250 MPa for aluminum powders is expressly disclosed by Wang et al. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knott (US 5,972,285) alone or in view of Reed et al. (US 3,122,434) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stone et al. (US 2010/0183470).
Regarding claim 13, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a powder height above the rollers as claimed. Stone et al. discloses a method for rolling compaction of metal powders [abstract, fig.1]; wherein a powder height level of 130 mm above the roller gap is maintained to enable smooth, continuous flow of powder into the roll gap [0073]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by specifying a powder height of 130 mm above the roller gap to enable smooth, continuous flow of powder into the roll gap as taught by Stone et al., which falls within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knott (US 5,972,285) alone or in view of Reed et al. (US 3,122,434) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujimura et al. (JP2016003362, machine translation referred to here).
Regarding claim 14, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a feed angle as claimed. Fujimura et al. discloses a method of making a porous metal plate through roller compaction [0001-0003]; wherein sheet properties are desirably controlled by controlling a ratio of Ld/R to be 1/10 to 1/12 where Ld is a contact length of powder on the roll and R is roll radius (ie. from a center of the roller) [0047-0052]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by controlling a ratio of powder contact length of the roller to radius of the roller in order to control sheet properties as taught by Fujimura et al. As determined by the examiner, the aforementioned ratio of Fujimura et al. results in an angle of approximately 4.7 to 5.7 degrees, which falls within the claimed range of at most 35 degrees.
Claim(s) 8 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knott (US 5,972,285) alone or in view of Reed et al. (US 3,122,434) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lemelson (US 4,335,494).
Regarding claims 8, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that the blank is cooled as claimed. Lemelson discloses a method of cold welding metal powders with compaction rollers [abstract, fig.1]; wherein heat is generated by compressive force of the rolls which may serve to fuse the powder material as an improved way of forming composite materials [col.1 ln.50-52]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Fujimura et al. by utilizing the apparatus of Lemelson as an improved way to form composites. The disclosure of Lemelson suggests at least partial fusing/melting of powders due to heat naturally generated during cold rolling, wherein said heat will naturally dissipate in later stages (ie. cooled after leaving a gap as claimed) [fig.3 ln.7-15, fig.1].
Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Lemelson further teaches that the cold pressure welding rollers are cooled to desirably remove heat from the compacted metal powder [col.5 ln.25-42].
Regarding claims 18-19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Lemelson teaches that cooling is performed with a fluid but does not expressly teach air flow that is sucked off [col.5 ln.25-42]. However, one of ordinary skill would readily understand that cooling air is a well-known and conventional cooling fluid, wherein said air would naturally need to be removed and circulated after sufficient heat transfer to said cooling air is achieved.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-8, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (JP2016003362, machine translation referred to here).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Fujimura et al. discloses a method of making a porous metal plate (ie. strip) from mixing a metal powder such as aluminum and a support powder (ie. foaming agent powder) [0001, 0010, 0031]. The examiner notes that the plate product of Fujimura et al. directly prior to sintering/heating meets the limitation of a sheet blank as claimed. Fujimura et al. further teaches that said sheet blank is obtained by compaction rolling of the aforementioned mixed powders, wherein said rolling can be cold rolling, which one of ordinary skill would readily understand to be at room temperature based on broadest reasonable interpretation of “cold” rolling [0062].
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Fujimura et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Fujimura et al. further depicts conveying the powder merely through gravity and the rollers that rotating in the direction of gravity [fig.1-2].
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Fujimura et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Fujimura et al. further teaches using wrought aluminum series, which the examiner notes must naturally be heat treated (ie. melting, etc.) during fabrication which meets the instant claim [0031].
Regarding claim 8, Fujimura et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). The examiner notes that the rolling of the aforementioned prior art would naturally result in some increase in temperature due to particle compaction/interaction, wherein said heat will naturally dissipate after roller compaction is performed (ie. after leaving the gap), which meets the limitation of cooling as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Fujimura et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Fujimura et al. further teaches that sheet properties are desirably controlled by controlling a ratio of Ld/R to be 1/10 to 1/12 where Ld is a contact length of powder on the roll and R is roll radius (ie. from a center of the roller) [0047-0052]. As determined by the examiner, the aforementioned ratio of Fujimura et al. results in an angle of approximately 4.7 to 5.7 degrees, which falls within the claimed range of at most 35 degrees.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (JP2016003362, machine translation referred to here) in view of Childs et al. (US 4,419,324).
Regarding claim 5, Fujimura et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Fujimura et al. does not expressly teach that the level of powder above the rollers is kept constant as claimed. Childs et al. discloses a method of feeding metal particles such that a height of the particles in the hopper is kept constant and held steady by a level detection system (ie. automated), which allows for controlled extrusion of said powder [col.3 ln.17-30]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by keeping a powder level in the hopper to be constant for controlled powder extrusion/rolling as taught by Childs et al. The examiner alternatively notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the features of the prior art to arrive at the predictable result of a cold rolling method wherein powder level can be desirably controlled. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The examiner further notes that merely automating an already known activity which accomplishes the same result as the prior art is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04(III).
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (JP2016003362, machine translation referred to here) in view of Lemelson (US 4,335,494).
Regarding claims 8-9, Fujimura et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Fujimura et al. does not expressly teach that the the blank is cooled or moved through a heat insulated area as claimed. Lemelson discloses a method of cold welding metal powders with compaction rollers [abstract, fig.1]; wherein heat is generated by compressive force of the rolls which may serve to fuse the powder material as an improved way of forming composite materials [col.1 ln.50-52]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Fujimura et al. by utilizing the apparatus of Lemelson as an improved way to form composites. The disclosure of Lemelson suggests at least partial fusing/melting of powders which would are then heated (ie. heat insulated) directed after cold pressure welding by member (80) and then must naturally undergo subsequent cooling in later stages when said heating is removed (ie. cooled after leaving a gap as claimed) [fig.3 ln.7-15, fig.1].
Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Lemelson further teaches that the cold pressure welding rollers are cooled to desirably remove heat from the compacted metal powder [col.5 ln.25-42].
Regarding claims 18-19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Lemelson teaches that cooling is performed with a fluid but does not expressly teach air flow that is sucked off [col.5 ln.25-42]. However, one of ordinary skill would readily understand that cooling air is a well-known and conventional cooling fluid, wherein said air would naturally need to be removed and circulated after sufficient heat transfer to said cooling air is achieved.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (JP2016003362, machine translation referred to here) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2015/0381020).
Regarding claim 12, Fujimura et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Fujimura et al. does not expressly teach a compaction pressure as claimed. Wang et al. discloses that it is known to compact aluminum powder composites under 200 to 250 MPa prior to sintering, which falls within the claimed range [0028]. The examiner notes that all of the claimed features are disclosed in the prior art, although not necessarily in a single reference, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the features of the prior art to arrive at the predictable result of a cold rolling compaction method wherein a known compaction pressure of 200 to 250 MPa for aluminum powders is expressly disclosed by Wang et al. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (JP2016003362, machine translation referred to here) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stone et al. (US 2010/0183470).
Regarding claim 13, Fujimura et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Fujimura et al. does not expressly teach a powder height above the rollers as claimed. Stone et al. discloses a method for rolling compaction of metal powders [abstract, fig.1]; wherein a powder height level of 130 mm above the roller gap is maintained to enable smooth, continuous flow of powder into the roll gap [0073]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of the aforementioned prior art by specifying a powder height of 130 mm above the roller gap to enable smooth, continuous flow of powder into the roll gap as taught by Stone et al., which falls within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimura et al. (JP2016003362, machine translation referred to here) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knott (US 5,972,285).
Regarding claim 16, Fujimura et al. discloses the method of claim 1 (see previous). Fujimura et al. does not expressly teach inclusion of titanium hydride as claimed. Knott discloses a foamable aluminum article [abstract]; wherein it is well known and conventional to utilize titanium hydride as the foaming agent [col.2 ln.27-60]. Alternatively, Knott further teaches that improved foamed articles can be achieved by using magnesium hydride as well as other materials such as titanium hydride as the foaming, gas-producing agents [col.2 ln.1-13, col.4 ln.27-35]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the method of Fujimura et al. by utilizing titanium hydride as the foaming material because titanium hydride is well-known and conventional or because titanium hydride in addition to other inclusions can achieve an improved foamed article as taught by Knott.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 is directed to a method as recited in the independent claim, wherein heat dissipation is greater in a center area than an edge area. There is no prior art of record that teaches or suggests these features together. Rather, one of ordinary skill would recognize that heat dissipation is usually greater at the edges, which is contrary to the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights