DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The Information Disclosure Statements, filed 04 September 2024, 04 September 2024, 29 July 2025, 03 September 2025, 29 October 2025, 10 April 2026, 15 April 2026, and 28 August 2026 have been considered by the examiner. Signed copies are attached.
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment to the claims filed on 04 June 2025, and the application is being examined on the basis of the amended disclosure.
Claims 13-53 are pending.
Claims 13-53 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that instant application is a Continuation of Application 17/342,926 (now US patent # 12,111,638) and has been accorded the benefit of the original priority date.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s duty to disclose relevant information to the office under 37 CFR 1.56(a). 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98 provide a mechanism by which applicants may comply with that duty. The rules do not require applicant to file unreviewed or irrelevant documentation. IDS submissions, like other submissions, are subject to the provisions of 37 CFR 10.18 which requires that an IDS be reviewed to assure its submission does not cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase the cost of examination. This would be considered in bad faith. Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1184, 33 USPQ2nd 1823, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (“burying a particularly material reference in a prior art statement containing a multiplicity of other references can be probative of bad faith”). See MPEP 2001.
It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information should be eliminated. If a long list is submitted, those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance should be highlighted. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). See MPEP 2004.13.
Applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his expertise and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real world conditions under which examiners work. See Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [220 USPQ 289] (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such way as not to “bury” it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; See Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. Fl. 1972).
The Examiner further notes that the Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS), fail(s) to indicate the relevance of each item listed. Given the large number of items listed on the IDS document(s), the Office respectfully requests the cooperation of the Applicant in providing a concise explanation of relevance of each corresponding reference listed on the IDS document(s) relating to examination of the instant application (e.g. pertinent paragraphs, columns, line numbers, drawings, etc.). Doing so would help ensure that information relevant to the validity of any issued patent is not overlooked.
It is noted that it is impractical for the Examiner to review the references thoroughly in view of the number of references cited. By signing the accompanying IDS document(s), the examiner is acknowledging the submission of the document(s) and indicating that only a cursory review has been made of the cited references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13-19, 22-23, 26-41, 44, 47-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Czinger et al., US Pg-Pub 2018/0339456 (hereafter Czinger’456).
Regarding Claim 13, Czinger’456 discloses:
A system (see figs. 1-27) for producing a product, ([0043] “manufacturing and assembly of vehicles”) comprising: a design subsystem ([0197] “computer (e.g., via a computer aided design (CAD) software”) configured to generate a design of one or more part, ([0197] “In the next step 13300, the component can be designed, such as on a computer (e.g., via computer aided design (CAD) software and/or selected from a library of pre-designed or standard parts. A three-dimensional model or design form of the part can be defined.”)
wherein the generated design of the one or more part is based at least on a manufacturing constraint (e.g. type of material, see [0079]) or an assembly constraint; (e.g. location and diameter of a fixturing hole for a fastener; see [0139]) ([0196] “In a first step 13100, the component can be specified. In the component specification, the component requirements such as size and function”; [0194] “ the labels may simply identify final product requirements information. Based on the final product requirements information, robots (e.g., automated constructors), via machine-learning, may perform one or more vehicle manufacturing processes complying with the final product requirements information.” [0079] “Machine learning may be used to accurately print a part and/or print over a part on the fly. For example, where lightweight parts are needed, machine learning can guide the automated constructor to print with aluminum. In situations where high strength components are required, the constructor can print with steel. Additionally, machine learning may accurately determine alloying mixtures as needed, thereby driving alloy development based on load and other considerations (environmental factors, density, location on the vehicle, etc.)”)
and a manufacturing subsystem (see figs 1A-7, automated factory) comprising a manufacturing module ([0006] “a first one of the automated constructors comprises a three dimensional (3-D) printer” see [0047] “3-D printers can be supported on a robotic device”) and an assembly module, ([0006] “automatedly installing the component by the second one of the automated constructors during the assembly of the transport structure.” [0045] “ A facility may comprise one or more robotic assembly stations. Each robotic assembly station may comprise one or more robots, including automated constructors. A set of vehicle manufacturing processes may be performed in each robotic assembly station.”)and configured to receive the generated design, ([0075] “In addition to manufacturing processes, slicing refers to the step wherein the computer aided design (CAD) file of the part to be 3-D printed is cut (or “sliced”) to provide instructions to the printer to print the part.”)
wherein the manufacturing module is configured to additively manufacture one or more structure based on the generated design, ([0198] “In the next step 13500, an additive fabricator machine, or facility that may be partially or completely automated, may render the 3-D component model data into a physical component 13410.” See also [0150] “For example, a 3-D printing robot may be configured to perform a 3-D printing process with aid of a 3-D printer.” )
and wherein the assembly module is configured to assemble the one or more additively manufactured structure forming the product. ([0126] “Once all the production inputs, such as the 3-D printed parts, standard and structural COTS parts, body parts, other tools, and/or materials, are delivered to the appropriate locations, via a transport system, on an assembly line, the vehicle assembly may begin.”)
Regarding Claim 35, this claim recites substantively the same subject matter discussed with respect to claim 13, except embodied as a method. Mutatis Mutandis, this claim is likewise anticipated by Czinger’456 for the same reasons articulated with respect to Claim 13.
Regarding Claims 14 and 36, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35, respectively
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 14 representative) wherein the design subsystem is in a geographical location different from the manufacturing subsystem. (see fig. 6, [0154] “the one or more control system may be implemented on separate computers. In certain configurations, one or more control systems may be a software stored in memory accessible by other control systems (e.g., in a memory local to the other control systems or remote memory accessible over a communication link, such as the network). In some configurations, for example, one control system may be a computer hardware, and another control system (e.g., ERP system directing the 3-D printers) may be software that can be executed by another control system.” [0185] “the end customers may communicate with the control system via a cloud or a server (such as the control server 1505 of FIG. 1B). The end customers may, for example, use a user device (e.g., such as the user device 6030a, 6030b) comprising a user interface to provide user input (e.g., instructions)” see also [0094] “the server may reside locally within the assembly facility or it may reside at a campus or building thereof, or one or more dedicated locations networked to the assembly facility.”)
Regarding Claims 15 and 37, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35, respectively;
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 15 representative) wherein the manufacturing module is configured to receive post-processing instructions for refining the one or more additively manufactured structure. ([0115] “Alternatively, the 3-D printed part may be processed post-print in a subsequent automated stage in a post-print processing system. The post-print processing system may comprise one or more computer numeric control (CNC) machines that can be configured to perform automated and repeatable surface treatment of the 3-D printed parts.”)
Regarding Claims 16 and 38, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35, respectively;
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 16 representative) wherein the manufacturing module comprises one or more three-dimensional (3-D) printer. ([0006] “a first one of the automated constructors comprises a three dimensional (3-D) printer” see [0047] “3-D printers can be supported on a robotic device”)
Regarding Claims 17 and 39, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35, respectively;
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 17 representative) wherein the assembly module comprises one or more robot. ([0045] “A facility may comprise one or more robotic assembly stations. Each robotic assembly station may comprise one or more robots”)
Regarding Claims 18 and 40, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35, respectively;
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 18 representative) wherein the assembly module is configured to receive the one or more additively manufactured structure. ([0165] “The robot may be capable of receiving and post-processing 3-D printed parts, and delivering the 3-D printed parts to a robotic assembly station for incorporation into a complex structure “)
Regarding Claims 19 and 41, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35 respectively,
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 13 representative) wherein the assembly module is configured to receive an assembly sequence. ([0185] “a user interface to provide user input (e.g., instructions) to guide the robotic motions and sequences to produce and/or assemble a vehicle or other structures.” See also [0055] discussing ordering of assembly steps, e.g. sequentially.)
Regarding Claim 22, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 13,
Czinger’456 further discloses:
wherein an automated guided vehicle is configured to transport the product from the assembly module. ([0165] “The robot may be capable of receiving and post-processing 3-D printed parts, and delivering the 3-D printed parts to a robotic assembly station for incorporation into a complex structure “)
Regarding Claims 23 and 44, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35, respectively;
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 23 representative) wherein an automated guided vehicle is configured to transport the product to a post-processing location. ([0144] “For example, some robots, such as mobile support vehicles, can be configured to gather 3-D printed parts from printers, collect standard and structural COTS materials, such as carbon fiber tubes, extrusions and structured panels, and collect arms of a robot from a robot arm exchanging center 5100 for transport.” [0165] “The robot may be capable of receiving and post-processing 3-D printed parts”
Regarding Claims 26 and 47, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35, respectively;
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 26 representative) wherein the manufacturing constraint includes an additively manufacturing factor. ([0077] “Machine learning may also enable print heads to travel in optimized paths and speeds. Instead of simply moving from Point A to B, the machine learning algorithms can determine the quickest and most efficient paths.”)
Regarding Claims 27 and 48, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 26 and 47 respectively;
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 27 representative) wherein the additively manufacturing factor includes printer speed relative to print quality of the one or more additively manufactured structure. ([0077] “This optimization process can allow the print head to accelerate while printing regions with simple geometries, while slowing down to account for changes in direction. Machine learning may provide the motion control firmware with more flexibility by optimizing G Code paths to allow for more extreme movements.”)
Regarding Claims 28 and 49, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35 respectively,
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(claim 28 representative) wherein the manufacturing constraint includes a region of the one or more part. ([0081] “Machine learning may be integrated in the CAD design phase… the algorithm would anticipate potential structures…” [0081] “machine learning algorithms can automatically generate fill structures in regions where structural reinforcement is needed”)
Regarding Claims 29 and 50, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 28 and 35, respectively;
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(claim 29 representative) further comprising an analysis of the region. ([0081] “these algorithms can be configured to ‘anticipate’ structures in regions by observing the build stage and can instruct the automated constructor to print. The various load cases would be specified before the vehicle is manufactured and would be a part of a directory, thereby providing the machine learning algorithm a database to refer to for accurately printing the required amount of structure.”)
Regarding Claims 30 and 51, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 29 and 50, respectively;
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 30 representative) wherein the analysis includes reducing or eliminating a problem of the region in the manufacturability of the one or more part. (e.g. structural reinforcement/loading, see [0081] “machine learning algorithms can automatically generate fill structures in regions where structural reinforcement is needed. Additionally, these algorithms can be configured to ‘anticipate’ structures in regions by observing the build stage and can instruct the automated constructor to print. The various load cases would be specified before the vehicle is manufactured and would be a part of a directory, thereby providing the machine learning algorithm a database to refer to for accurately printing the required amount of structure. Machine learning may be integrated in the CAD design phase itself, wherein the algorithm would anticipate potential structures and include them automatically. This is similar to an autocomplete algorithm in an internet search bar.”)
Regarding Claims 31 and 52, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 13,
Czinger’456 further discloses:
(Claim 31 representative) a test module, ([0166] “The robotic automation system may support various processes… such as… testing”) wherein the generated design is tested in the test module to determine the generated design meets one or more parameter. ([0188] “The system may further collect test results and inspection measurements at each critical step of the manufacturing and assembly process.”)
Regarding Claims 32 and 53, Czinger’456 discloses all of the limitations of parent claims 31 and 52,
Czinger’456 further teaches:
wherein the one or more parameter includes at least a desired safety parameter or a desired performance parameter. ([0202] “For example, after a component reaches the end of its predicted life and is retired, it can be subjected to tests that estimate additional or excess remaining service life it may still have. Components may be discarded with some additional remaining service life, such as to retain a safety margin, discarding a component with excessive remaining life may be wasteful. Components found to have some additional useful service life can be re-used, for example, in applications that are less safety-critical “)
Regarding Claim 33, Czinger’456 teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 13,
Czinger’456 further teaches:
wherein the generated design is based on the manufacturing constraint (e.g. type of material, see [0079]) and the assembly constraint. (e.g. location and diameter of a fixturing hole for a fastener; see [0139])
Regarding Claim 34, Czinger’456 teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 33,
Czinger’456 further teaches:
wherein the generated design includes a determination of a location of a feature in the one or more part. ([0139] “The availability of 3-D printing can add substantial flexibility to the available connecting methods. For example, fasteners, fixturing features (e.g., holes of a certain diameter) for fixturing the fasteners, and/or channels for the introduction of adhesives can be custom-designed and 3-D printed.”)
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.
Claim(s) 20-21 and 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger’456 further in view of Spicer et al., US Pg-Pub 2015/0336271.
Regarding Claims 20 and 42, Czinger’456 teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35, respectively;
Czinger’456 differs from the claimed invention in that:
(Claim 20 representative) Czinger’456 does not appear to clearly articulate wherein the assembly module is configured to join the one or more additively manufactured structure without a fixture.
However, Spicer teaches an assembly process for vehicles ([0002] “component locating during assembly of assembling multiple component items, such as but not limited to vehicle body components, boats, construction equipment, lawn equipment, or robots.”) which includes using a plurality of robotic arms ([0269] “Robotic system 24”) during a joining step, including joining and positioning the components ([0269] “to couple the first component 10 and the second component 12 at the first process joint interface 852 and the second process joint interface 854 to create a process joint 826 having a first predetermined strength that maintains the second component 12 relative to the first body component 12.”) without using a fixture (see fig. 38, [0269] “the first component 10 can be held on the fixtureless support 30 while the process joint is made, or, as shown in FIGS. 39-40, the first component 10 and the second component 12 can both be supported by separate fixtureless supports in the form of robotic arms 22 with end effectors 26” )
Spicer is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of robotic assembly of products.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Czinger’456 to use the assembly robots of Czinger’456 as fixtureless supports for a joining operation, as suggested by Spicer.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce costs and lead times, as suggested by Spicer ([0077] “Production costs and lead time may be reduced because dedicated fixtures and clamps for different stages of the assembly are not required. Complex part holding pallets and fixtures are not required as the vision system enables retrieval and placement of components without requiring their precise initial placement. Additionally, because many of the fixtureless supports and end effectors disclosed herein are reconfigurable, flexible and rapid reconfiguration for use with different subassemblies is enabled.”)
Regarding Claims 21 and 43, Czinger’456 teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35, respectively;
Czinger’456 differs from the claimed invention in that:
(Claim 21 representative) Czinger’456 does not appear to clearly articulate: wherein the assembly module is configured to position the one or more additively manufactured structure without a fixture.
However, Spicer teaches an assembly process for vehicles ([0002] “component locating during assembly of assembling multiple component items, such as but not limited to vehicle body components, boats, construction equipment, lawn equipment, or robots.”) which includes using a plurality of robotic arms ([0269] “Robotic system 24”) during a joining step, including joining and positioning the components ([0269] “to couple the first component 10 and the second component 12 at the first process joint interface 852 and the second process joint interface 854 to create a process joint 826 having a first predetermined strength that maintains the second component 12 relative to the first body component 12.”) without using a fixture (see fig. 38, [0269] “the first component 10 can be held on the fixtureless support 30 while the process joint is made, or, as shown in FIGS. 39-40, the first component 10 and the second component 12 can both be supported by separate fixtureless supports in the form of robotic arms 22 with end effectors 26” )
Spicer is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of robotic assembly of products.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Czinger’456 to use the assembly robots of Czinger’456 as fixtureless supports for a joining operation, as suggested by Spicer.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce costs and lead times, as suggested by Spicer ([0077] “Production costs and lead time may be reduced because dedicated fixtures and clamps for different stages of the assembly are not required. Complex part holding pallets and fixtures are not required as the vision system enables retrieval and placement of components without requiring their precise initial placement. Additionally, because many of the fixtureless supports and end effectors disclosed herein are reconfigurable, flexible and rapid reconfiguration for use with different subassemblies is enabled.”)
Claim(s) 24-25, and 45-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czinger’456 in view of Czinger’984.
Regarding Claims 24 and 45, Czinger’456 teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 13 and 35, respectively;
Czinger’456 differs from the claimed invention in that:
(Claim 24 representative) Czinger’456 does not appear to clearly articulate: wherein the generated design is based on a regional requirement.
However, Czinger’984 teaches a design process for vehicle manufacturing which includes a regional requirement ([0108] “An example of vehicle requirements interface is shown in FIG. 9. As shown in FIG. 9, users may be allowed to input requirements of the design using a drop-down menu. For instance, users may be provided with options to input country of registration” ) including off-road capability ([0189] “Performance characteristics can be selected, such as a top speed (e.g., from slow to fast), an on/off road characteristic”)
Czinger’984 is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of robotic assembly of products.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the teachings of Czinger’456 to include generating the design based on a regional requirement, as suggested by Czinger’984.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to validate that the design is fit-for-purpose, as suggested by Czinger’984 ([0107] “performance results from Layer 1 (801) may be evaluated and analyzed to verify whether the reference design meets a set of requirements. In some cases, the requirements may include fundamental functional performance criteria and safety requirements to meet. For example, the requirements may specify the basic functions and product behavior and characteristics under stress and fault conditions. In another example, the requirements may include operating rules set by governing or licensing bodies, federal safety standards, fuel and emission standards, roadway condition descriptions, environment descriptions, etc. These requirements may vary according to where the vehicle will be operated, e.g., which country jurisdiction, and according to the purpose of the vehicle (e.g., a utility truck, passenger commute car, emergency response vehicle, race car, etc.).”
Regarding Claims 25 and 46, Czinger’456 in view of Czinger’984 teaches all of the limitations of parent claims 24 and 45, respectively;
Czinger’984 further teaches:
wherein the regional requirement includes off-road travel. (Czinger’984 [0189] “Performance characteristics can be selected, such as a top speed (e.g., from slow to fast), an on/off road characteristic”)
One of ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to make this modification in order to validate that the design is fit-for-purpose, as suggested by Czinger’984 ([0107] “performance results from Layer 1 (801) may be evaluated and analyzed to verify whether the reference design meets a set of requirements. In some cases, the requirements may include fundamental functional performance criteria and safety requirements to meet. For example, the requirements may specify the basic functions and product behavior and characteristics under stress and fault conditions. In another example, the requirements may include operating rules set by governing or licensing bodies, federal safety standards, fuel and emission standards, roadway condition descriptions, environment descriptions, etc. These requirements may vary according to where the vehicle will be operated, e.g., which country jurisdiction, and according to the purpose of the vehicle (e.g., a utility truck, passenger commute car, emergency response vehicle, race car, etc.).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Czinger et al., US Pg-Pub 2017/0050677 - particularly for [0059] describing adjusting the design of a region of a vehicle chassis based on regional crash worthiness requirements.
Macey et al., US Pg-Pub 2019/0391563 – published within one year of the earliest priority date of the application, appears to have been commonly assigned at the time of filing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
