DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure does not set forth what is a “product length acquisition unit”. It is clear applicant has an idea what the “unit” does—but applicant has not defined or disclosed what it is—in such clear and complete language as to be reasonably on notice that applicant is in actual possession of the subject matter being claimed.
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 1-6 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 limitation “product length acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Throughout the specification, the “product …unit” is not defined as any specific technological or physically thing. It is consistently and only referenced as a “unit” and has no structure defined in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 2 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. The clause “a table main body that is moved upward and downward” is indefinite since it is a method step in an apparatus type claim—and is not clear what the boundary to the table is. Is the table movable? Capable of movement? What table structure is being recited?
Claim 4 recites “the pass/fail judgement unit judges the product length as fail, the product length acquisition unit measures, as an auxiliary product length, the product length of the cut member based on a measurement result of a measuring device configured to contact a measuring contact directly with the cut surface.” Which are statements of method steps, and are not statements of a device, which are therefore indefinite. It cannot be discerned what element is being claimed—as the device is not being further defined—rather method steps are being actively performed, and not claimed as device elements.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinisch (US 2002/0056606) in view of Ito (US 20050046792).
Regarding claim 1, Reinisch discloses A cut member processing device (abstract, [0035] inter alia), comprising: a marking device configured to put a mark on a cut surface of a cut member cut out from a metal long workpiece by a cutting device (“ marking of the work piece with a laser” paragraph 0035]). Reinisch further discloses a product length acquisition unit configured to measure and store a product length of the cut member (Disclosed most explicitly as “measurement and testing devices” at [0044]).
As the claims are best understood in light of their indefiniteness discussed above, the Reinsch device has both a product length determination device—in that it discloses measurement of a product, and a marking device, as is old and well known in the art—such as the laser marking device disclosed therein; however Reinsch does not note that the laser marking and size determination are co-located—e.g. at the same station, in accordance with claim limitation “product length acquisition unit is configured to measure the product length under a state where the cut member is located at a position that allows the marking device to put the mark on the cut surface.”
The particular measurement tool is not specified in Reinsch. Indeed, there is indefiniteness and unclarity surrounding whether that is even an aspect of the invention, as applicant does not note the type of masurement device in claim 1. It appears applicant views the “invention” as being the combination of two old known components in a single location or device—the presence of a product ‘height checker’ and a piece marker—to put information about the product onto it while it is being made. This concept is old, as are the subcomponents applicant has broadly alluded to.
See—“However, for the alignment of the optical reference position on the convex surface L11 side and the reference position T of the marking apparatus 3, for example, a laser sensor 5 may be used as a measuring section as illustrated in FIGS. 22 and 23. Measuring light is emitted from a light emitter 51 to a light receiver 52 of the laser sensor 5. A part of the measuring light is blocked by the spectacle lens L2 and the rest of the light reaches the light receiver 52. Thus, the position at which the light receiver 52 receives light corresponds to the height of the optical reference position of the spectacle lens L2 in the Z-axis direction.” ([02540] of Ito (US 20050046792) and figure 22. Figure 22 shows light emitters and receivers 51 , 52 designed to engage with a workpiece L2 and by their blockages to come to know the height and position of the workpiece in a manner directly analogous to applicant). At that same station shown in figure 22, the disclosure of Ito further discusses the presence of a laser marking device 13, “[0088] The marking apparatus 1 includes: a holder 11 for holding the spectacle lens L1; a stage 12 as a shifting member capable of shifting the holder 11 holding the spectacle lens L1; a laser beam output section (laser output section) 13 for emitting laser beams; and a control section 14.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both the measurement device and the laser marking device of Reinsch at the same station, since doing so would permit measurement of the units being cut by Reinsch’s system and marking to take place simultaneously and save a station, where the co-location is taught by Ito in the same field of systems of work being processed and marked with processing information.
Claim(s) 1-2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millis (US 3,676,652) in view of Ito (US 20050046792) and Ramsey (US 2013/0075296).
Regarding claim 1, Millis discloses a cut member processing device (See figure 1, “Power hack saw 5” column 5 line 8), comprising: a marking device configured to put a mark on a cut surface of a cut member cut out from a metal long workpiece by a cutting device (“chalk” – “use of a metal tape, a hooked end of which is pulled against one end of the steel piece being measured and the tape unrolled by the operator to the specified length at which point a chalk mark is made on the steel. A cut is thereafter taken at the chalk mark.”). Note that marking with chalk is per se a ”marking device” as claimed, and is capable of marking the end (or any part) of the metal being processed.
Millis further discloses a product length acquisition unit (16, 38, inter alia) configured to measure and store a product length of the cut member (“The other or fiducial measuring system comprises a series of identical, equally spaced, fiducial unit housings, two being indicated generally at 16, which are connected to a fiducial unit support angle 18”, and further “ (7) While the fiducial subsystem gives a measurement to a foot of resolution and accuracy, the quantizing subsystem serves to interpolate between the fiducial footage readings to give a reading in inches and fractions of an inch of the workpiece length. Essentially, the quantizing subsystem includes a roller which is raised during a measuring operation to make contact with the workpiece. It is then rotated by the workpiece's lateral movement, produced by the operator as he positions it toward the desired length. The roller shaft is directly coupled to a quantizer or digitizer whose output pulses are summed by a digital counter included in the logic. Now, by resetting the counter at each instant a fiducial unit change is detected, i.e., a normally open beam being broken, or a broken beam being opened, at which time an exact footage reading is available, the resulting counter value continuously represents the distance the workpiece end extends beyond the last changed fiducial unit as the workpiece movement continues. By scaling this incremental distance in the counter in inches and fractions thereof, the display of its contents serves to represent the final portion of the overall length measurement.
(8) The quantizing unit assembly 14 is shown in more detail in FIG. 2. A roller assembly 20 is shown which includes a cylindrical center or inner portion 21 which may be formed in a number of detailed configurations by a number of techniques as will be recognized by those skilled in the art. Center 21 is coated with an outer rubber surface 22. Roller assembly 20 is mounted on a shaft 24 which, in turn, is rotationally attached via bearings, one being shown at 23, to the opposite sides of a U-shaped pivoting bracket 25. Bracket 25, in turn, is pivotally attached, again by bearings, as at 26, to a pair of laterally disposed support members only one being shown at 27. These support members are rigidly attached to a mounting plate 28, which, in turn, is attached to the U-shaped assembly support 15, shown and noted earlier in the FIG. 1 system perspective drawing.”)
The Millis device therefore is both providing the measurement of a work that is being cut (by 5) and a means to mark the product (chalk) at the same station—consistent with the claim clause “the product length acquisition unit is configured to measure the product length under a state where the cut member is located at a position that allows the marking device to put the mark on the cut surface.”
Further, however—the use of a measurement station at the same location as a marking station to mark a product is known, according to Ito.
See—“However, for the alignment of the optical reference position on the convex surface L11 side and the reference position T of the marking apparatus 3, for example, a laser sensor 5 may be used as a measuring section as illustrated in FIGS. 22 and 23. Measuring light is emitted from a light emitter 51 to a light receiver 52 of the laser sensor 5. A part of the measuring light is blocked by the spectacle lens L2 and the rest of the light reaches the light receiver 52. Thus, the position at which the light receiver 52 receives light corresponds to the height of the optical reference position of the spectacle lens L2 in the Z-axis direction.” ([02540] of Ito (US 20050046792) and figure 22. Figure 22 shows light emitters and receivers 51 , 52 designed to engage with a workpiece L2 and by their blockages to come to know the height and position of the workpiece in a manner directly analogous to applicant). At that same station shown in figure 22, the disclosure of Ito further discusses the presence of a laser marking device 13, “[0088] The marking apparatus 1 includes: a holder 11 for holding the spectacle lens L1; a stage 12 as a shifting member capable of shifting the holder 11 holding the spectacle lens L1; a laser beam output section (laser output section) 13 for emitting laser beams; and a control section 14.”
It is also known that laser marking in general is suitable for marking on metal work substrates—as in Ramsey “As illustrated in FIG. 9, the laser marking process may be performed on the can end stock metal on the coil before the metal enters the shell press.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide both the measurement device and the laser marking device of Millis at the same station, since doing so would permit measurement of the units being cut by Millis’ system and marking to take place simultaneously and save a station, where the co-location is taught by Ito in the same field of systems of work being processed and marked with processing information.
Regarding claim 2, Millis further discloses a table main body (2 figure 1) that is moved upward and downward and on which the cut member is to be placed (as best understood, this clause means the table is capable of being moved—and as 2 stands on legs, it is movable in space—);
Millis discloses an optical sensor device configured to emit and receive a light beam horizontally at a predetermined height position above the table main body (16; while not ‘pure’ horizontal—the angle of 16 as shown does have a horizontal component and therefore meets the limitation. Alternatively see Ito which shows height measurement by pure horizontal optical system as discussed above).
Millis does not utilize the same type of marking system as applicant, but as noted above, the Ito marking system positioning and style would be applicable here—and therefore adding such a laser marking system so that “the marking device is configured to put the mark on the cut surface located at the predetermined height position by emitting a laser beam from above whose a focal point position is the predetermined height position” would have been obvious in light of Ito.
Millis does not use “the product length acquisition unit is configured to acquire the product length of the cut member at a position corresponding to the predetermined height position at which the cut member transitions from a state of not receiving the light beam to a light receiving state through an elevating operation of the table main body on which the cut member is placed.” Because Millis is for big long bar-stock items being produced.
In Ito we see the opposite end of the product spectrum—small light glasses lenses—which are placed on a table movable about in X-Y-Z space: “[0091] The stage 12 has an X-axis and a Y-axis for a horizontal movement with respect to a reference surface which is set on a refractive surface of the spectacle lens L1 held by the holder 11, and a Z-axis for a vertical movement with respect to the reference surface in accordance with the control from the control section 14. Thus, the holder 11 holding the spectacle lens L1 can be shifted in correspondence with the control from the control section 14.”
While Millis shows left-right movement for breaking the optical plane of sensing the product length, and subsequent processing, Ito shows a product on an XYZ table 12, and movable in each dimension, and the horizontal placement of the product measurement optical light sensor (51, 52 figure 22) and therefore, renders obvious the same type of movement in XYZ space for measuring and for marking the product at a location of the operators choice. In this context, the selection of where to mark the information is really a design choice without grand implications—the mark should be made to be visible to convey the information being conveyed, but otherwise, placing it on the cut surface is the same as placing it on a side wall, or another surface—it is simply the location chosen to be marked, and as Taught by Ito that can be, among other locations, the Side (figure 2A, or the top – figure 3).It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to move the marking position to any suitable location, including the top or cut surface of a processed workpiece, since it has been held that rearranging the parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. While Japikse deals with the location of a button—the same rationale applies here, since the button position did not impact the nature of the resulting actuation--- and here, the position of a marking for information does not impact or change the nature of providing information about a workpiece. The information is the same no matter where it is placed in a system of automatic processing. The presence of X-Y-Z movement in order to process an item is an old and well understood mechanism as evidenced at least by Ito.
Claim(s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millis (US 3,676,652) in view of Ito (US 20050046792) and Ramsey (US 2013/0075296) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Ahl (US 4,691,830) and Kondo (US 4,765,213).
Regarding claim 3, Millis does not use a pass/fail judgement unit configured to judge pass or fail by comparing the product length acquired by the product length acquisition unit with an allowable product length range indicating an allowable range of the product length. It is known in the art of manufacturing that products made with a size may be accidentally made the wrong size, and that it is the ordinary course to ‘reject’ such defective products before they are further processed. Examiner takes official notice of that fact. To do so—the rejection may be made by human inspector—or if there is sensor data corresponding to ‘knowledge’ about a product in process, that may lead to automated rejection. This is discussed in Ahl, which is in a different field of molded containers, but uses the same idea or problem solving issue as presented here—how to automate size checks for manufactured items: “The sampling indexer also selectively feeds containers to a manual visual inspection station or to a reject station, if appropriate.” And further: “The [products] are then fed to and through a multiple station finished product inspection or FPI device 38 wherein the containers are inspected for sidewall and finish defects, diameter and height variations, eccentricity, etc. Inspection containers are fed to a conveyor 40. Secondary inspection loops 28,30 include respective counters 32a, 32b, impact simulators 34a,34b and finished product multistation inspection devices 38a,38b. Containers exiting FPIs 38a,38b are fed to conveyor 40. Counters 32,32a and 32b, FPIs 38,38a and 38b, and CID 36 are all connected to a finished product computer or FPC 42 for analysis and correlation of defect data with mold cavities. A control cavity inspection device or CID 44 receives and reads the cavity code on all containers fed thereto by conveyor 40. CID 44 is connected to FPC 42 for receiving control information indicative of defective mold cavities and for feeding all containers bearing the corresponding cavity codes to a reject station 46.”
Kondo provides additional evidence about the state of the art with respect to measurements of the cut end of elements being processed—“ (4) The saw frame 4 is provided with a pair of saw guides 10 and 11, which distort and guide the band saw [blade] 8 so that the same may run with the band face kept directed vertically. Between the saw guides 10 and 11 is located a sensor support guide 12, which slidably guides a sensor support 13 having a surface warp sensor 14 on the lower end behind the saw blade 8. the surface warp sensor 14 is of a non-contact type, for example, made of a photosensor making use of a laser beam reflection. The sensor 14 detects the distance between the same and an object (the cut end surface of a material from which a section was cut away).”
“(15) The above embodiment described in the state that it is applied to an automatic sawing machine can be modified by replacing the non-contact type surface warp sensor 14 with a contact type sensor consisting of a differential transformer and a probe lever, both being fixed to the sensor support 13, as shown in FIG. 6. According to FIG. 6, a probe lever 14a, which is made to contact with the cut end surface F of a material M by means of a spring 14c, mechanically [transmits] the crookedness of the cut end surface F to a differential transformer 14b in contact with the upper end of the probe lever 14a. Thus the differential transformer 14b outputs an electric signal reflecting the warp of the cut end surface F. This modification can be further modified by substituting any other suitable force transducers for the above differential transformer 14b.”
In the knowledge that taking information about a product (including height) and comparing it to a desired threshold for compliance is known, it would have been obvious to add such a system as taught by Ahl to the device and system of Millis, since doing so would provide for the automated rejection of mis-sized elements before they were further processed.
Regarding claim 4, Millis does not use both a contact and non-contact sensor in the same area—as claimed “the pass/fail judgement unit judges the product length as fail, the product length acquisition unit measures, as an auxiliary product length, the product length of the cut member based on a measurement result of a measuring device configured to contact a measuring contact directly with the cut surface.” Which is understood to mean there are two sensors which can both monitor and identify the height of the product (see 112(b) above). Here, Kondo provides evidence that the use of both touch and optical sensors are known to be useful in the monitoring of the dimensions of a cut side of a workpiece, as set forth above. In that context it would have been obvious to add to Millis (and all secondary references) the dual use of both – since providing a contact sensor as a backup to the non-contact sensor would ensure more up-time if one sensor were to fail, or better accuracy, since the sensors could be compared over time to note if they were becoming uncalibrated.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millis (US 3,676,652) in view of Ito (US 20050046792) and Ramsey (US 2013/0075296) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Forster (US 3,771,613).
Regarding claim 5,0 while Millis does not use a mass sensor capable of measuring a mass of the cut member under the state where the cut member is located at the position that allows the marking device to put the mark on the cut surface, such a sensor would have been obvious to implement.
Millis is a device intended to make sized metal items—corresponding to certain lengths. In that context, providing a sensor to note the weight at the same time provides a check on the accuracy of the cut in addition to the laser measurement of the component. Weighing a unit provides additional information, in addition to the length, which helps to determine if a process is within tolerance for the particular desired output. As taught in Forster: “A weight standardization machine for workpieces such as connecting rods for internal combustion engines and the like, said machine having a load station from which workpieces are successively advanced to a weight station whereat a weighing scale determines the magnitude of overweight of successive workpieces thereon, and to a work station whereat successive workpieces are clamped for removal of excess weight as by a milling machine, the overweight information determined by the weighing scale being converted and stored to control the feed stroke of the milling cutter to remove precisely the right amount of metal when the previously weighed workpieces are successively clamped at the work station, and there being provided a sensing means responsive to engagement of the milling cutter with the workpiece to initiate said predetermined feed stroke as determined by the weighing scale converter.”
It would have been obvious to add a scale for the determination of mass of the products being made in any Millis/Ito type machining system, since it provides accuracy in process variables—which are useful when a particular size or weight is desirable, as taught in Forster.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millis (US 3,676,652) in view of Ito (US 20050046792) and Ramsey (US 2013/0075296) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Ohno (US 2015/0003685).
Regarding claim 6, Millis, Ito and Ramsey above disclose a cutting device configured to cut out a cut member from a metal long workpiece (Millis figure 1). And Millis (as above) discloses a product length acquisition unit (16, 14, inter alia, discussed above) configured to measure and store a product length of the cut member (this is discussed and shown above in the control of the device noting at each time what the processing length of the material is), the product length acquisition unit being configured to measure the product length under a state where the cut member is located at a position that allows the marking device to put the mark on the cut surface (as discussed above, the positioning of the laser marking is a routine and simple selection, which does not change the device in an inventive manner—placing the laser above, to the side, etc. are all obvious to those of ordinary skill, and easy to effect in smaller parts processing when the part is placed on the XYZ table).
Millis in view of Ito further discloses a cut member processing device provided with a marking device configured to put a mark on a cut surface of the cut member (as noted above, Ito shows the positioning style similar to applicant, rendering the same obvious).
Millis does not use “a robot hand device configured to load the cut member cut out by the cutting device into the cut member processing device.” Ohno discloses the use of a robotic hand to both measure a piece, discern distance, and to place it into the next place in an assembly system—“ [0022] The following describes a first embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, an assembly apparatus 13 according to the present embodiment includes a measurement apparatus 12 and a robotic hand mechanism 131 (a gripping apparatus). The robotic hand mechanism 131 includes a robotic hand and a control apparatus that controls the robotic hand. The control apparatus of the robotic hand mechanism 131 controls the robotic hand to install an object gripped by the robotic hand (a gripped part) on an assembly target object with reference to distance information obtained from the measurement apparatus 12. The measurement apparatus 12 provides the robotic hand mechanism 131 with distance information of the gripped part or the assembly target (hereinafter referred to as measurement targets). That is to say, the gripped part and the assembly target constitute the measurement targets.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to improve Millis in view of Ito, et al, by having a robot hand move the work between stations in a processing system, since doing so further automates the operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M MICHALSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6752. The examiner can normally be reached Typically M-F 6a-3:30p East Coast Time.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
SEAN M. MICHALSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3724
/SEAN M MICHALSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724