DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15, 17, and 19-22 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
The most recent claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the current claim amendments.
The most recent 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the current claim amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s representative argues the following: “Hay does not teach a gyroscopic orientation sensor disposed within a tubular housing that is configured to be at least partially received within the chuck or the foot clamp of the drill rig. Rather, Hay merely discloses sensors that are configured to be attached to the distal end of a drill string that is positioned downhole.”
Examiner respectfully notes that this is not claimed, and that claim 1 merely recites having “a gyroscopic orientation sensor disposed within the tubular housing”, and not “at least partially received within the chuck or the foot clamp of the drill rig.”
Furthermore, Applicant’s representative argues the following:
“Further, the device of Hay is not configured for determining the orientation of the drill rig. Rather, the device of hay is configured for sensing aspects of a borehole. Thus, Applicant submits that the orientation sensors of McCracken and Hay are not interchangeable. Rather, the orientation of the drill rig and the orientation of the borehole both provide important information that is separately and independently valuable to the drill rig operator.
Still further, the Office Action takes the position that it would have been obvious to modify McCracken to ‘substitute the location of the gyroscopic orientation sensor.’ However, the proposed modification of McCracken is not an arbitrary change, but one that negatively affects the integral orientation device of McCracken. For example, the orientation device of McCracken, by being integral, does not interfere with operation of the rotation unit 18. Modification of McCracken to arrive at the claimed combination not only requires the extra steps of gripping and releasing the orientation device, but the modification inhibits use of the orientation device while drilling. That is, the orientation device of McCracken can provide orientation data at any time while drilling. If McCracken were modified to arrive at the claimed combination, then the orientation device can only provide orientation data when gripped by the rotation unit. Accordingly, such a modification would have fundamentally changed the principle of operation of the drill rig of McCracken. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that one skilled in the art would not have been motivated to modify McCracken to arrive at the claimed combination.
More generally, modifying McCracken to replace the integral orientation device with the claimed device would have fundamentally changed the principle of operation of McCracken and would have prevented the integral orientation device from functioning as intended. Because the Office Action does not provide any motivation to modify McCracken to arrive at the claimed combination recited in claim 1, Applicant submits that modification of McCracken to arrive at the claimed combination is not an obvious substitution and would not have been pursued by a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the arguments by Applicant’s representative’s are conclusionary statements without providing any factual evidence. Furthermore, if Applicant is stating that the combination of both the references are incompatible due to one teaching away from another (or, something of the like), then detailed arguments need to be presented by the Applicant’s representative, as Examiner respectfully fails to see why the gyroscopic sensor (as taught by Hay) cannot be used in combination with McCracken’s drilling assembly. If there is a critical feature in the claims that have a certain degree of importance, it is advised to include that language in the claim(s) in keeping with the instant specification for purposes of overcoming the most recent prior art rejection. Examiner suggests incorporating more claim language (i.e. structural and/or functional) in light of the specification to overcome the prior art rejection and advance prosecution, preferably towards an allowance.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/13/2025. Some of the drawings are acceptable, while others issues still remain.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The line quality of figures 2, 4-7, 9-10, and 12, when zoomed in, illustrate an inconsistent line quality. 37 CFR 1.84 (Standards for Drawings), section L (Character of lines, numbers, and letters) states: “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined”. The drawings should be viewed in the USPTO’s patent center in order to see this problem.
Figures 2, 4-5, 9-10, and 12 have poor line quality and thus do not meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84(L). The drawings should be viewed in the USPTO’s patent center in order to see this problem. The drawings likely contain grayscale elements which causes image degradation in the USPTO electronic filing system. The drawings must be entirely bi-tonal, containing only black or white color values.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows:
“A method of using the alignment device as in claim 1, the method comprising:
gripping the alignment device with [[a]]the chuck of [[a]]the drill rig, the drill rig having a drilling axis; and
providing, using the gyroscopic orientation sensor of the alignment device, [[a]]the signal indicative of [[an]]the orientation of the alignment device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows:
“A method of using the alignment device as in claim 1, the method comprising:
gripping the alignment device with [[a]]the foot clamp of [[a]]the drill rig, the drill rig having a drilling axis; and
providing, using the gyroscopic orientation sensor of the alignment device, [[a]]the signal indicative of the orientation of the alignment device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows:
“A method of using the alignment device as in claim 1, the method comprising:
coupling the alignment device to a casing of a borehole; and
providing, using the gyroscopic orientation sensor of the alignment device, [[a]]the signal indicative of [[an]]the orientation of the alignment device.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 12-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCracken et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0314331 A1; herein “McCracken”) in view of Hay (US Publication Number 2018/0038218 A1; herein “Hay”) in further view of Craig Wall (US Publication Number 2017/0167208 A1; herein “Craig Wall”).
In regard to claim 1, McCracken discloses: An alignment device (as disclosed in figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0204-0208]) for measuring orientation of a drill rig (10) having a gripping assembly (i.e., comprising portion of 18 that grips/rotates drill tubular 20 — at least abstract and figures 1-2), the device comprising:
a tubular housing (comprising 20) having an outer surface (i.e., outer radial surface of 20) and defining an inner bore (i.e., bore of 20), wherein the tubular housing is configured to be at least partially received within the gripping assembly of the drill rig (paragraphs [0203, 0211] and figures 1-2);
a gyroscopic orientation sensor (paragraphs [0041-0046, 0213-0214, 0222-0223]), wherein the gyroscopic orientation sensor is configured to provide a signal indicative of an orientation of the alignment device (paragraphs [0215-0219]); and
a transmitter in communication with the gyroscopic orientation sensor, wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit an output indicative of the orientation of the alignment device (paragraphs [0215-0219]).
However, McCracken is silent in regard to: An alignment device for measuring orientation of a drill rig having at least one of a chuck or a foot clamp,
a tubular housing having an outer surface and defining an inner bore, wherein the tubular housing is configured to be at least partially received within the chuck or the foot clamp,
a gyroscopic orientation sensor disposed within the tubular housing; and
a wireless transmitter in communication with the gyroscopic orientation sensor, wherein the wireless transmitter is configured to transmit a wireless output indicative of the orientation of the alignment device.
Nonetheless, Craig Wall teaches that drill rigs are known to have top head drives/chuck drives to allow for rotation of the drilling tubular (paragraphs [0004, 0017, 0051]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the gripping assembly, as taught by McCracken, with a gripping assembly comprising a chuck, as taught by Craig Wall, to yield the predictable result of providing an alternative rotational drilling mechanism to create borehole(s) (paragraphs [0004, 0017] — Craig Wall). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Furthermore, McCracken is silent in regard to: a gyroscopic orientation sensor disposed within the tubular housing; and
a wireless transmitter in communication with the gyroscopic orientation sensor, wherein the wireless transmitter is configured to transmit a wireless output indicative of the orientation of the alignment device.
Nonetheless, Hay teaches a drilling system used to create boreholes (see abstract and figures 1, 4 & 13), similar to that of McCracken. Hay teaches that gyroscopic sensor(s) (e.g., 402, 412, 1320) can be disposed in drilling tubular housing(s) (at least 407), in which wireless signals can transfer gyroscopic orientation sensor data to determine the orientation in which the drilling assembly is drilling the borehole — see paragraphs [0030, 0037, 0054-0055, 0108, 0110, 0118-0119] and figures 3 and 13.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the location of the gyroscopic orientation sensor, as taught by McCracken, to within the tubular housing, as taught by Hay, to yield the predictable result of determining the orientation of the drilling tubulars/rods used for creating boreholes, as taught by both McCracken and Hay. See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention in a manner which does not alter its operation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Lastly, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the communication means of the gyroscopic orientation sensor data, as taught by McCracken, with wireless communication means, as taught by McCracken, to yield the predictable result of making automatic adjustments of the orientation of the sensory system (including a drill or milling bit) based on the data (paragraph [0119] of Hay). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 4, in view of the modification of the preceding claim, Hay further discloses: an end cap (e.g., 408, top of 405, top of 407) that is configured to seal the gyroscopic orientation sensor within the housing (figure 4).
In regard to claim 5, McCracken further discloses: at least one processor that is configured to receive the signal from the sensor and determine, based on the signal, the orientation of the alignment device (paragraphs [0049-0050, 0205-0207, 0215, 0217-0218-0219, 0233, 0234, 0253, 0257-0259, 0261-0262]).
In regard to claim 6, McCracken further discloses: an indicator, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a user input comprising at least one orientation parameter associated with a desired orientation of the drill rig, compare the orientation of the alignment device to the desired orientation, and provide, by the indicator, an output to an operator indicative of a difference between the orientation of the alignment device and the desired orientation (paragraphs [0049-0050, 0205-0207, 0215, 0217-0218-0219, 0233, 0234, 0253, 0257-0259, 0261-0262]).
In regard to claim 7, McCracken further discloses: wherein the at least one orientation parameter comprises an azimuth (paragraphs [0205-0206]).
In regard to claim 8, McCracken further discloses: wherein the indicator is a visual indicator, wherein the visual indicator is configured to change a visual output based on the difference (i.e., change) between the orientation of the alignment device and the desired orientation (paragraphs [0049-0050, 0205-0207, 0215, 0217-0218-0219, 0233, 0234, 0253, 0257-0259, 0261-0262]).
In regards to claim 12, in view of the preceding modification, McCracken further teaches: A method of using the alignment device as in claim 1, the method comprising:
gripping the alignment device with [[a]]the chuck of [[a]]the drill rig (i.e., chuck, as taught by Craig Wall), the drill rig having a drilling axis (see claim 1 rejection | also, see paragraphs [0049-0050, 0205-0207, 0215, 0217-0218-0219, 0233, 0234, 0253, 0257-0259, 0261-0262] — McCracken); and
providing, using the gyroscopic orientation sensor of the alignment device, [[a]]the signal indicative of [[an]]the orientation of the alignment device (see claim 1 rejection | also, see paragraphs [0049-0050, 0205-0207, 0215, 0217-0218-0219, 0233, 0234, 0253, 0257-0259, 0261-0262] — McCracken).
In regards to claim 13, McCracken in view of Hay and Craig Wall disclose the preceding claim(s). McCracken intrinsically teaches positioning the “alignment device” in the gripping assembly, as shown in figures 1-2.
However, the modification of McCracken in view of Hay and Craig Wall is/are silent in regards to: positioning, using a rod handler, the alignment device within the chuck prior to gripping the alignment device with the chuck.
Nonetheless, Craig Wall teaches that drill rigs are known to have rod handlers to position “alignment devices”/drilling tubulars in a chuck (4 — paragraphs [0004, 0017, 0051]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the drilling rig, as taught by McCracken, to include for a rod handler, as taught by Craig Wall, “[ ] ...to assemble and disassemble the drill string and to carry drill rods between a drill rod stowage platform or the like and the drilling rig” (paragraph [0001]).
In regards to claim 14, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Craig Wall further discloses: wherein the method further comprises moving the chuck axially along the drilling axis (i.e., axis in relation to the drilling tubular coupled to the chuck | see paragraphs [0004, 0017]).
In regards to claim 15, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), C McCracken further discloses: rotating, using the chuck, the alignment device about 180 degrees about the drilling axis (paragraphs [0004, 0017, 0051] — Craig Wall), wherein the alignment device provides orientation data in two orientations offset (i.e., arbitrary offset orientation data points) by about 180 degrees (i.e., arbitrary degrees “about” 180 degrees — as taught by the McCracken).
In regard to claim 17, Examiner notes that the since a “chuck” was initially selected from the parent claim 1 options between a “chuck” and “foot clamp”, claim 17 is inapplicable as it positively recites using only a “foot clamp”.
In regard to claim 20, McCracken further discloses: a remote computing device in communication with the alignment device (paragraphs [0049-0050, 0205-0207, 0215, 0217-0218-0219, 0233, 0234, 0253, 0257-0259, 0261-0262]).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCracken et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0314331 A1; herein “McCracken”) in view of Hay (US Publication Number 2018/0038218 A1; herein “Hay”) in further view of Craig Wall (US Publication Number 2017/0167208 A1; herein “Craig Wall”) and Wentworth (US Publication Number 2013/0098686 A1; herein “Wentworth”).
In regard to claim 2, McCracken in view of Hay disclose claim 1 above.
However, McCracken in view of Hay and Craig Wall is/are silent in regard to: wherein the housing defines at least one window that is configured to permit wireless communication therethrough.
Nonetheless, Wentworth teaches downhole drill tool (as shown in figure 1) comprising orientation sensor (32 — see paragraph [0024] of Wentworth), similar to that of McCracken. Wentworth cites: “Signals generated by the orientation sensor 32 may pass through the orientation sensor cover 34 or through a plurality of transmission windows 36 formed on the sides of the outer member 16. The signals are transmitted to a receiver (not shown) located at the ground service for use by an operator (not shown)” (paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify McCracken to include for at least one window configured to permit wireless communication therethrough, as taught by Wentworth, as it is known to have such windows in helping assist in transmitting signals to the surface from the ground/borehole (paragraph [0024] of Wentworth).
In regard to claim 3, in view of the modifications of the preceding claim(s), Wentworth further discloses: wherein the at least one window comprises a plurality of windows that are circumferentially spaced around the tubular housing (paragraph [0024]).
Claim(s) 9 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCracken et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0314331 A1; herein “McCracken”) in view of Hay (US Publication Number 2018/0038218 A1; herein “Hay”) in further view of Craig Wall (US Publication Number 2017/0167208 A1; herein “Craig Wall”) and Cartwright et al. (US Publication Number 2008/0073121 A1; herein “Cartwright”).
In regard to claim 9, McCracken further discloses: wherein the indicator, wherein the indicator is configured to change a visual output based on the difference (i.e., change) between the orientation of the alignment device and the desired orientation (paragraphs [0049-0050, 0205-0207, 0215, 0217-0218-0219, 0233, 0234, 0253, 0257-0259, 0261-0262]).
However, McCracken in view of Hay and Craig Wall is/are silent in regard to an audible indicator.
Nonetheless, Cartwright teaches that drilling equipment alignment indicators can be audible (paragraphs [0024-0026]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the indication means, as taught by McCracken, with an audible indicator, as taught by Cartwright, to yield the predictable result of providing an alternative indication means for aligning drilling equipment (abstract — Cartwright). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 22, in view of the modification of the preceding claim(s), Cartwright further discloses: wherein the audible indicator comprises a speaker (Examiner notes that the “speaker” is intrinsically true as the audible indicator provides a device that converts electrical impulses into some arbitrary level of sound).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCracken et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0314331 A1; herein “McCracken”) in view of Hay (US Publication Number 2018/0038218 A1; herein “Hay”) in further view of Craig Wall (US Publication Number 2017/0167208 A1; herein “Craig Wall”) and Wilde et al. (US Publication Number 2011/0108328 A1; herein “Wilde”).
In regard to claim 10, McCracken in view of Hay disclose claim 1 above.
However, McCracken in view of Hay and Craig Wall is/are silent in regard to: wherein the outer surface of the tubular housing is cylindrical.
Nonetheless, Wilde cites: “While drill collars are typically provided with a cylindrical shape, in various embodiments of the present invention, the drill collar can have a spiral cast shape, or a selected polygonal prismatic shape, such as a rectangular, triangular, hexagonal, or octagonal prism” (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the tubular housing, as taught by McCracken, with a cylindrical outer surface tubular housing, as taught by Wilde, in light of simple substitution of a known drilling tubular since Wilde expressly teaches that cylindrical drilling tubing strings are known alternatives (paragraph [0021] — Wilde). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
In regard to claim 11, McCracken in view of Hay and Craig Wall disclose claim 1 above.
However, McCracken in view of Hay and Craig Wall is/are silent in regard to: wherein the outer surface of the tubular housing has polygonal cross sections.
Nonetheless, Wilde cites: “While drill collars are typically provided with a cylindrical shape, in various embodiments of the present invention, the drill collar can have a spiral cast shape, or a selected polygonal prismatic shape, such as a rectangular, triangular, hexagonal, or octagonal prism” (paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to simply substitute the tubular housing, as taught by McCracken, with a polygonal cross sectioned outer surface tubular housing, as taught by Wilde, in light of simple substitution of a known drilling tubular since Wilde expressly teaches that polygonal cross sectioned drilling tubing strings are known alternatives (paragraph [0021] — Wilde). See MPEP 2143, section I, subsection B.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCracken et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0314331 A1; herein “McCracken”) in view of Hay (US Publication Number 2018/0038218 A1; herein “Hay”) in further view of Craig Wall (US Publication Number 2017/0167208 A1; herein “Craig Wall”) and Werde et al. (US Publication Number 2011/0247880 A1; herein “Werde”).
In regard to claim 19, McCracken further discloses: providing, using the gyroscopic orientation sensor of the alignment device, a signal indicative of [[an]]the orientation of the alignment device (paragraphs [0215-0219]).
However, the modification of McCracken in view of Hay and Craig Wall is/are silent in regard to: coupling the alignment device to a casing of a borehole.
Nonetheless, Werde teaches that borehole alignment drilling machinery can be used/coupled with drill rods, casing, etc. which can be oriented to the desired borehole (paragraphs [0022-0024, 0078-0079]).
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the alignment device, as taught by McCracken, to include for a casing, as taught by Werde, to allow for creating/drilling holes (paragraph [0004] of Werde).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCracken et al. (US Publication Number 2017/0314331 A1; herein “McCracken”) in view of Hay (US Publication Number 2018/0038218 A1; herein “Hay”) in further view of Craig Wall (US Publication Number 2017/0167208 A1; herein “Craig Wall”) and Kolpack et al. (US Publication Number 2013/0175092 A1; herein “Kolpack”).
In regard to claim 21, McCracken in view of Hay and Craig Wall teaches the preceding claim(s).
However, the McCracken in view of Hay and Craig Wall is/are silent in regard to: wherein the visual indicator comprises an LED that is configured to change color or a frequency of flash based on the difference between the orientation of the alignment device and the desired orientation.
Nonetheless, Kolpack teaches a similar type of drilling system to McCracken, where paragraph [0037] of Kolpack teaches using a color scheme system which works alongside an alignment conditions of the drill string.
Therefore, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), to modify the visual indicator, as taught by McCracken, to include a light-emitting diode that is configured to change color, as taught by Kolpack, the aligning the drilling system to its ideal conditions (paragraph [0037] — Kolpack).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676