DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/786,646, filed on 29 July, 2024, were presented for examination, and are currently pending in the application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The Examiner erroneously objected to missing priority papers in the First Office Action, and apologizes. All required papers have been received. No further action is required of Applicant on this matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 August, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the middle of page 8 of the response Applicant asserts that the claim amendments have support in various parts of the specification. The Examiner concurs that the amendments are supported. The bottom of page 8 recites the full body of claim 1, as amended, with emphasis on the newly added limitation “the at least one recess is positioned to align the plurality of first wirings and the plurality of second wirings when the flexible substrate is wound in the circumferential direction…” In the first full paragraph of page 9, Applicant characterizes Yamamoto via figures 17-18 (which were not part of the rejection), and with reference to the support members 62 and 64 which are not part of the coil substrate and therefore not applicable to the claims. Applicant alleges that Yamamoto, via figs. 17-18 and the support members 62 and 64, “merely describes” that the support members have protrusions and the band member of the coil assembly has recesses…” There is no argument in this paragraph against the rejection of claim 1 as amended, there is further no argument against the rejection of claim 1, pre-amendment. The Examiner cannot find in this paragraph a limitation of claim 1 that Applicant is alleging Yamamoto does not meet. The paragraph concludes with “Yamamoto et al. does not describe or suggest whether the recesses (34D) of the band member (34) are formed before or after the band member (34) is rolled…” and this is also not part of claim 1, so the Examiner cannot counter the argument, although it is false, since fig. 49 clearly establishes that the recesses are on the coil substrate before being rolled (see rejection below).
In the second full paragraph of page 9, Applicant alleges that Yamamoto does not teach or suggest forming one or more recesses on one longitudinal side of the substrate such that one or more recesses are positioned to align wirings formed on one surface of the flexible substrate and wirings formed on the opposite side of the flexible substrate when the flexible substrate is wound in the circumferential direction formed into a cylindrical shape. This allegation includes features that are not in claim 1, as amended, and where the allegation does track with the claim limitations, specifically the newly added limitation, the rejection below shows that the newly added limitation is met by Yamamoto. The first and second wirings do indeed align with themselves (U with U, V with W, etc. – see ¶ 0140) when the substrate is wound in the circumferential direction.
In page 10 of the response, Applicant asserts that the priority claim to Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-012945, filed on 31 January, 2022, establishes that date as the effective filing date of this application, and alleges that this antedates the effectively filed date of Yamamoto (which Applicant provides as 12 March, 2015 and the Examiner believes is a typo), while requesting that the outstanding rejections based on Yamamoto be withdrawn. The Examiner double-checked the File Wrapper (Prosecution History) of Yamamoto (US Patent Application No. 18/666,400), and confirmed the effectively filed date of the reference is 18 November, 2021, via Japanese Patent Application NO. 2021-188164. Therefore the effectively filed date of Yamamoto antedates the effective filing date of the instant application (31 January, 2022), qualifying it as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2), which was the paragraph used in the rejection of the prior Office Action, and which has been used below. Consequently the request is denied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto (US 2024/0305154 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Yamamoto teaches a coil substrate [coil assembly 32], comprising:
a flexible substrate [band member 34] (see ¶ 0071-0074) having a first surface [34A] and a second surface [34B] on an opposite side with respect to the first surface [34A] {see fig. 11 excerpt below and ¶ 0096 which recites “the first straight portion A1, the second…. are formed on a first surface 34A (see FIG. 10) of the band member 34… the fourth straight portion A4, the fifth…. are formed on a second surface 34B…”}; and
PNG
media_image1.png
370
1259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of coils [16] comprising a plurality of first wirings [A1-C3, W12T1, W12T2… U12T3] and a plurality of second wirings [A4-C6, UT11T1, U11T2… W11T3] (See fig. 11 excerpt above and fig. 7 excerpt attached below) such that the first wirings [W12T1, W12T2… U12T3] are formed on the first surface [34A] of the flexible substrate [34] and that the second wirings [UT11T1, U11T2… W11T3] are formed on the second surface [34B] of the flexible substrate [34] (see ¶ 0075-0079 and 0097-0098),
PNG
media_image2.png
336
507
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the flexible substrate [34] (now referring to the joint annotated excerpts of figs. 17 and 19 attached below, as well as ¶ 0135-0136, 0144-0145, and 0148 which are directed to the “present embodiment” which is the same as the “present embodiment” of the preceding figures and paragraphs, except this is where the reference turns to discussing the recesses 34D not labeled in earlier figures) has at least one recess [34D] (see ¶ 0148 which recites “on the first side in the axial direction, there are formed six coil-assembly-side recesses 34D…”) formed on at least one longitudinal side (longitudinal side labeled by the Examiner in the fig. 19 excerpt) of the flexible substrate [34] and is configured to be wound in a circumferential direction [C] around an axis [Z] extending in a width direction [Z] of the flexible substrate [34] orthogonal to a longitudinal direction [C] of the flexible substrate [34]
such that the at least one recess [34D] is positioned to align the plurality of first wirings and the plurality of second wirings when the flexible substrate [34] is wound in the circumferential direction (see annotated excerpts of figs. 49 and 47 below, and ¶ 0214 which recites “the coil assembly 32 is formed by rolling the band member 34 along the circumferential direction a plurality of times…” and ¶ 0140 which recites “the U-phase coils 16 are all arranged in alignment with one another in the circumferential direction and all physically wound in one direction. Moreover, the U-phase coils 16 are connected so that when the U-phase coils 16 are energized, the U-phase coils 16 function identically to the left-handed U—phase coils and right-hand U-phase coils which are arranged in the circumferential direction. In addition, the V-phase coils 16 and W-phase coils 16 are also configured in the same manner as the U-phase coils 16…” – it is noted that this sub-clause of the claim does not recite what the first wirings and second wirings are aligned with. The Examiner believes the limitation is met by the reference explicitly describing how the phases’ coils align with themselves, once wrapped)
PNG
media_image3.png
340
676
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and that the flexible substrate [34] is formed into a cylindrical shape (see figs. 17 and 4 as well as ¶ 0074 which recites “the band member 34 is rolled along the circumferential direction a plurality of times into a cylindrical shape.”).
PNG
media_image4.png
565
1171
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3/1, Yamamoto teaches the substrate of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one recess [34D] formed in the flexible substrate [34] comprises a plurality of recesses [34D] formed along the longitudinal direction [C] of the flexible substrate [34] (see fig. 17 above and ¶ 0148).
With respect to claim 4/3/1, Yamamoto teaches the substrate of claim 3, and further teaches wherein the flexible substrate is formed such that the recesses [34D] overlap each other (¶ 0148 describes how protrusions 62D each engage multiple recesses, and the overlap is evident in fig. 17 and clearly shown in fig. 4, although not labeled there except by the Examiner in the new excerpt below – if a protrusion 62D extends into the recesses of multiple turns, then the recesses must overlap – see also ¶ 0149) when the flexible substrate [34] is wound N [4 in the embodiment of figs. 4/13/17] turns in the circumferential direction [C] where N [4] is an integer of 2 or more, and
PNG
media_image5.png
387
1181
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the flexible substrate [34] is configured to be wound such that the first and second wirings [W12T1, W12T2… U12T3 and UT11T1, U11T2… W11T3 but labeled 46 in fig. 17] have a plurality of wirings [46] formed in an M-th layer [2nd layer] from an inner side of N [4] circumferential layers and a plurality of wirings [46] formed in an (M + 1)-th layer [1st layer] and that the wirings [46] formed in the M-th layer [2nd layer] overlap the wirings formed in the (M + 1)-th layer [1st layer], where M [2] is an integer equal to or larger than 1 and less than N [4] {the Examiner has gray-shaded the wirings of the M-th Layer and the wirings of the (M + 1)-th layer that overlap in the fig. 13 excerpt above}.
With respect to claim 5/1, Yamamoto teaches the coil substrate of claim 1, and further teaches a motor coil substrate [32] (see title and abstract wherein a stator and electric machine are recited and ¶ 0065 where the overall motor 10 is introduced), comprising:
the coil substrate [32] of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) wound in the circumferential direction [C] such that the first surface [34A] is positioned on an inner circumferential side of the cylindrical shape and that the second surface [34B] is positioned on an outer circumferential side of the cylindrical shape (see new annotated excerpt of fig. 4 attached below and ¶ 0074).
PNG
media_image6.png
401
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 6/5/1, Yamamoto teaches a motor [10] (see ¶ 0065-0067) comprising:
a cylindrical yoke [26] (see ¶ 0070 and annotated excerpts of figs. 1 and 2 below);
the motor coil substrate [32] of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above) on an inner side of the cylindrical yoke [26];
PNG
media_image7.png
465
896
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a magnet [18] on the inner side of the cylindrical yoke [26] such that the magnet [18] is positioned on an inner side of the motor coil substrate [32]; and
a rotation shaft [22] positioned on the inner side of the motor coil substrate [32] such that the rotation shaft [22] is positioned on an inner side of the magnet [18] (see ¶ 0067-0069).
With respect to claim 7/2/1, Yamamoto teaches the substrate of claim 2, and further teaches wherein the at least one recess [34D] formed in the flexible substrate [34] comprises a plurality of recesses [34D] formed along the longitudinal direction [C] of the flexible substrate [34] (see fig. 17 above and ¶ 0148).
With respect to claim 8/7/2/1, Yamamoto teaches the substrate of claim 7, and further teaches wherein the flexible substrate is formed such that the recesses [34D] overlap each other (¶ 0148 describes how protrusions 62D each engage multiple recesses, and the overlap is evident in fig. 17 and clearly shown in fig. 4, although not labeled there except by the Examiner in the new excerpt below – if a protrusion 62D extends into the recesses of multiple turns, then the recesses must overlap – see also ¶ 0149) when the flexible substrate [34] is wound N [4 in the embodiment of figs. 4/13/17] turns in the circumferential direction [C] where N [4] is an integer of 2 or more, and
PNG
media_image5.png
387
1181
media_image5.png
Greyscale
the flexible substrate [34] is configured to be wound such that the first and second wirings [W12T1, W12T2… U12T3 and UT11T1, U11T2… W11T3 but labeled 46 in fig. 17] have a plurality of wirings [46] formed in an M-th layer [2nd layer] from an inner side of N [4] circumferential layers and a plurality of wirings [46] formed in an (M + 1)-th layer [1st layer] and that the wirings [46] formed in the M-th layer [2nd layer] overlap the wirings formed in the (M + 1)-th layer [1st layer], where M [2] is an integer equal to or larger than 1 and less than N [4] {the Examiner has gray-shaded the wirings of the M-th Layer and the wirings of the (M + 1)-th layer that overlap in the fig. 13 excerpt above}.
With respect to claim 9/2/1, Yamamoto teaches the coil substrate of claim 2, and further teaches a motor coil substrate [32] (see title and abstract wherein a stator and electric machine are recited and ¶ 0065 where the overall motor 10 is introduced), comprising:
the coil substrate [32] of claim 2 (see rejection of claims 1-2 above) wound in the circumferential direction [C] such that the first surface [34A] is positioned on an inner circumferential side of the cylindrical shape and that the second surface [34B] is positioned on an outer circumferential side of the cylindrical shape (see new annotated excerpt of fig. 4 attached below and ¶ 0074).
PNG
media_image6.png
401
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 10/9/2/1, Yamamoto teaches a motor [10] (see ¶ 0065-0067) comprising:
a cylindrical yoke [26] (see ¶ 0070 and annotated excerpts of figs. 1 and 2 below);
the motor coil substrate [32] of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above) on an inner side of the cylindrical yoke [26];
PNG
media_image7.png
465
896
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a magnet [18] on the inner side of the cylindrical yoke [26] such that the magnet [18] is positioned on an inner side of the motor coil substrate [32]; and
a rotation shaft [22] positioned on the inner side of the motor coil substrate [32] such that the rotation shaft [22] is positioned on an inner side of the magnet [18] (see ¶ 0067-0069).
With respect to claim 11/3/1, Yamamoto teaches the coil substrate of claim 3, and further teaches a motor coil substrate [32] (see title and abstract wherein a stator and electric machine are recited and ¶ 0065 where the overall motor 10 is introduced), comprising:
the coil substrate [32] of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above) wound in the circumferential direction [C] such that the first surface [34A] is positioned on an inner circumferential side of the cylindrical shape and that the second surface [34B] is positioned on an outer circumferential side of the cylindrical shape (see new annotated excerpt of fig. 4 attached below and ¶ 0074).
PNG
media_image6.png
401
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 12/11/3/1, Yamamoto teaches a motor [10] (see ¶ 0065-0067) comprising:
a cylindrical yoke [26] (see ¶ 0070 and annotated excerpts of figs. 1 and 2 below);
the motor coil substrate [32] of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above) on an inner side of the cylindrical yoke [26];
PNG
media_image7.png
465
896
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a magnet [18] on the inner side of the cylindrical yoke [26] such that the magnet [18] is positioned on an inner side of the motor coil substrate [32]; and
a rotation shaft [22] positioned on the inner side of the motor coil substrate [32] such that the rotation shaft [22] is positioned on an inner side of the magnet [18] (see ¶ 0067-0069).
With respect to claim 13/4/3/1, Yamamoto teaches the coil substrate of claim 4, and further teaches a motor coil substrate [32] (see title and abstract wherein a stator and electric machine are recited and ¶ 0065 where the overall motor 10 is introduced), comprising:
the coil substrate [32] of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above) wound in the circumferential direction [C] such that the first surface [34A] is positioned on an inner circumferential side of the cylindrical shape and that the second surface [34B] is positioned on an outer circumferential side of the cylindrical shape (see new annotated excerpt of fig. 4 attached below and ¶ 0074).
PNG
media_image6.png
401
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 14/13/4/3/1, Yamamoto teaches a motor [10] (see ¶ 0065-0067) comprising:
a cylindrical yoke [26] (see ¶ 0070 and annotated excerpts of figs. 1 and 2 below);
the motor coil substrate [32] of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above) on an inner side of the cylindrical yoke [26];
PNG
media_image7.png
465
896
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a magnet [18] on the inner side of the cylindrical yoke [26] such that the magnet [18] is positioned on an inner side of the motor coil substrate [32]; and
a rotation shaft [22] positioned on the inner side of the motor coil substrate [32] such that the rotation shaft [22] is positioned on an inner side of the magnet [18] (see ¶ 0067-0069).
With respect to claim 15/1, Yamamoto teaches the substrate according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the plurality of coils [16] is formed such that each of the coils [16] includes at least one of the first wirings [A1-C3] and at least one of the second wirings [A4-C6] (see new annotated fig. 7 attached below and ¶ 0096 which recites “the fourth straight portion A4, the fifth straight portion A5 and the sixth straight portion A6 are formed on a second surface 34B…” while the same paragraph previously located A1-A3 on the first surface – in short, the solid lines indicate wirings on the first side 34A and the dotted lines indicate wirings on the second side 34B).
PNG
media_image8.png
333
507
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 16/15/1, Yamamoto teaches the substrate of claim 15, and further teaches wherein the at least one recess [34D] is positioned to align positions of the first wirings [W12T1, W12T2… U12T3] and the second wirings [UT11T1, U11T2… W11T3] when the flexible substrate [34] is wound in the circumferential direction [C] (see excerpts of figs. 13 and 4 below as well as fig. 17 above wherein the recesses 34D are shown aligned – fig. 13 is described in ¶ 0126-0127 – also, in fig. 13 the wirings are labeled 46U/46V/46W...).
PNG
media_image9.png
388
573
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
424
427
media_image10.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17/15/1, Yamamoto teaches the substrate of claim 15, and further teaches wherein the at least one recess [34D] formed in the flexible substrate [34] comprises a plurality of recesses [34D] formed along the longitudinal direction [C] of the flexible substrate [34] (see fig. 17 above and ¶ 0148).
With respect to claim 18/17/15/1, Yamamoto teaches the substrate of claim 17, and further teaches wherein the flexible substrate is formed such that the recesses [34D] overlap each other (¶ 0148 describes how protrusions 62D each engage multiple recesses, and the overlap is evident in fig. 17 and clearly shown in fig. 4, although not labeled there except by the Examiner in the new excerpt below – if a protrusion 62D extends into the recesses of multiple turns, then the recesses must overlap – see also ¶ 0149) when the flexible substrate [34] is wound N [4 in the embodiment of figs. 4/13/17] turns in the circumferential direction [C] where N [4] is an integer of 2 or more, and
PNG
media_image11.png
385
1176
media_image11.png
Greyscale
the flexible substrate [34] is configured to be wound such that the first and second wirings [W12T1, W12T2… U12T3 and UT11T1, U11T2… W11T3 but labeled 46 in fig. 17] have a plurality of wirings [46] formed in an M-th layer [2nd layer] from an inner side of N [4] circumferential layers and a plurality of wirings [46] formed in an (M + 1)-th layer [1st layer] and that the wirings [46] formed in the M-th layer [2nd layer] overlap the wirings formed in the (M + 1)-th layer [1st layer], where M [2] is an integer equal to or larger than 1 and less than N [4] {the Examiner has gray-shaded the wirings of the M-th Layer and the wirings of the (M + 1)-th layer that overlap in the fig. 13 excerpt above}.
With respect to claim 19/15/1, Yamamoto teaches the coil substrate of claim 15, and further teaches a motor coil substrate [32] (see title and abstract wherein a stator and electric machine are recited and ¶ 0065 where the overall motor 10 is introduced), comprising:
the coil substrate [32] of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above) wound in the circumferential direction [C] such that the first surface [34A] is positioned on an inner circumferential side of the cylindrical shape and that the second surface [34B] is positioned on an outer circumferential side of the cylindrical shape (see new annotated excerpt of fig. 4 attached below and ¶ 0074).
PNG
media_image6.png
401
432
media_image6.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 20/19/15/1, Yamamoto teaches a motor [10] (see ¶ 0065-0067) comprising:
a cylindrical yoke [26] (see ¶ 0070 and annotated excerpts of figs. 1 and 2 below);
the motor coil substrate [32] of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above) on an inner side of the cylindrical yoke [26];
PNG
media_image7.png
465
896
media_image7.png
Greyscale
a magnet [18] on the inner side of the cylindrical yoke [26] such that the magnet [18] is positioned on an inner side of the motor coil substrate [32]; and
a rotation shaft [22] positioned on the inner side of the motor coil substrate [32] such that the rotation shaft [22] is positioned on an inner side of the magnet [18] (see ¶ 0067-0069).
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.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto in view of Sakai (JP 60039743 A, provided with machine translation in the prior Office Action).
With respect to claim 2/1, Yamamoto teaches the substrate of claim 1 but omits teaching wherein the flexible substrate is formed such that no recesses are formed on a longitudinal side of the flexible substrate on an opposite side with respect to the one longitudinal side of the flexible substrate.
Sakai discloses a rolled-up flexible PCB substrate with coils on it, in which positioning holes [3A/3B] overlap to align the substrate’s respective convolutions on pins [4D] when the substrate is rolled up into a cylinder. Figs. 3-4 show the substrate being wound (the abstract recites “are piled up on each other, and wound cylindrically, while positioning holes 3A and 3B of a coil bobbin 4 are fitted to pins 4D…” – this is basically the same operation as that shown in fig. 49 of Yamamoto, which is attached above in the rejection of claim 1, except with holes being used instead of peripheral notches).
PNG
media_image12.png
472
799
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Sakai teaches wherein the flexible substrate is formed such that no holes are formed on a longitudinal side of the flexible substrate on an opposite side with respect to the one longitudinal side of the flexible substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the substrate of Yamamoto, while omitting the recesses/holes on one longitudinal side, as taught by Sakai, in order to save the step of creating an extra set of recesses. Sakai and Yamamoto together show that in this specific art space, using the same process of rolling the substrate convolutely on a drum with alignment pins, that there are two options, a) using the pins/holes/recesses on only one side and b) using the pins/holes/recesses on both sides. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Sakai’s method requires less pins and holes/recesses, thus requiring less steps and features (and thus less cost), while being less redundant (if one pin slips there is not one on the other side of it to keep the process going), and Yamamoto’s method requires more pins and holes/recesses, thus adding steps and features (and more cost), while being more redundant. Said person of ordinary skill in the art would see that there are exactly two options in this matter, and would have found it obvious to try Sakai’s alternative in order to save steps and thus manufacturing cost.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 DANIEL K SCHLAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm EST.
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, Seye Iwarere can be reached at (571) 270 - 5112. 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.
/Daniel K Schlak/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/OLUSEYE IWARERE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
