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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
Figure 2, labeled “state of the art” should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a control data generation unit designed for generating control data in claim 12. Support for the unit and device is found in the disclosure, “Furthermore, the control data generation device 34 comprises a control data generation unit”, “In a particularly preferred variant, the control data generation device 34 is implemented on an external computer unit,”. The understanding is the control data device/unit are external computers.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the number of parameters" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what parameters are being directed to, the claim 1 geometric parameters of component layers or the “a number of parameters” that was removed in the amendment.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "manufacturing a target test body with control data which have been created using " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what method is being directed to, the method of claim 1 or a new method.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "The control data generation device " in line1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There isn’t a control data generation device in claim 10, it is unclear what device is being directed to.
Claims 1 and 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 term “substantially parallel” tries to alter the meaning of parallel. Parallel requires both lines to be perfectly aligned, by not being exactly aligned it would no longer be parallel. It is unclear what the bounds of “substantially” are.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The control data of claim 10 is already established in claim 1 "generating control data ". Claiming the control data again as a dependent is improper. Claims 11, 13, 14 are rejected as being dependent on claim 10. Claim 12 is rejected for including the same limitations of claim 1 as it depends on claim 10, which depends on claim 1. By reciting the same limitations as claim 1 it is not further limiting the scope. It is recommended to change 12 to be an independent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Below is an analysis in accordance with the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Process found in MPEP 2106(III).
Claim 1: A method for generating control data for a device for additive manufacturing of a component in a manufacturing process in which the component is constructed in a construction field in the form of component layers by selective solidification of building material by irradiating the building material with at least one energy beam, the method comprising the steps:
a) obtaining or generating layer information comprising geometric parameters of component layers and/or information relating to scan vectors of solidification regions which represent component layers of the component,
b) selecting or generating a first filling region for a first solidification region, wherein this filling region has a filling pattern of scan vectors parallel to one another with a predefined vector spacing,
c) creating a second filling region having a filling pattern of scan vectors parallel to one another for a second solidification region lying on the first solidification region, wherein the scan vectors of the second filling region are aligned to the scan vectors of the first filling region and arranged offset relative thereto, wherein filling patterns of overlapping filling regions differ from one another with respect to an offset longitudinally and transversely with respect to their scan vectors,
d) generating control data in such a way that the device for additive manufacturing can generate component layers corresponding to the solidification regions using this control data.
Step 1:
The claim recites a method. A method is a process. Thus, the claim is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One:
Limitations (a) in claim 1 recites: “obtaining or generating layer information comprising geometric parameters of component layers and/or information relating to scan vectors of solidification regions which represent component layers of the component”.
Limitations (b) in claim 1 recites: “selecting or generating a first filling region for a first solidification region, wherein this filling region has a filling pattern of scan vectors parallel to one another with a predefined vector spacing”.
Limitations (c) in claim 1 recites: “creating a second filling region having a filling pattern of scan vectors parallel to one another for a second solidification region lying on the first solidification region, wherein the scan vectors of the second filling region are aligned to the scan vectors of the first filling region and arranged offset relative thereto, wherein filling patterns of overlapping filling regions differ from one another with respect to an offset longitudinally and transversely with respect to their scan vectors,”.
Limitations (d) in claim 1 recites: “generating control data in such a way that the device for additive manufacturing can generate component layers corresponding to the solidification regions using this control data.”.
As is evident from the applicant’s disclosure, the claimed step (a) falls into the “Mental Processes” group of the abstract ideas because the recited steps are, observations(obtaining or generating layer information comprising geometric parameters of component layers in step (a)), that are simple enough that they can be practically performed in the human mind. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid to help them complete the recited calculation or observation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim here merely uses general purpose computer as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
The claimed steps (b) and (c) fall into the “Mathematical Concepts, Mathematical Calculations” group of the abstract idea because the recited step perform a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. The instant application recites that the vectors are purely geometric data on pg. 5 lines 10-11 “further layer information as purely geometric information for the subsequent component layers. ” and lines 20-22 “The control data can comprise data on the solidification regions, i.e. not necessarily finished control data, but geometric data on the position of the scan vectors of the individual filling regions.”. Steps (b) and (c) are performing calculations to ensure the geometric data is parallel in step (b) and performing an offset that is transverse in respect to the scan vectors in step (c). Steps (b) and (c) recite a mathematical calculation, when the steps are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the addition element step (d) “generating control data in such a way that the device for additive manufacturing can generate component layers corresponding to the solidification regions using this control data” amount to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process).
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “generating control data” amounts to no more than insignificant pre-activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g): i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process). Thus, when taken alone, the individual elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claims 2-5 are directed to an abstract idea using mathematical concepts, below is an analysis of each claim.
Claim 2 recites twisting the region data by an angle of rotation of more than 10 percent and aligning parallel which would fall under mathematical calculations.
Claim 3 recites shifting the region data in a transverse direction which would fall under mathematical calculations.
Claim 4 determines a pattern in the vectors, either a hatching, contour or spiral which would fall under mathematical calculations.
Claim 5 recites shifting, rotating, ranges of 45-55% and 90-10% which would fall under mathematical calculations.
Claims 2-5 recite a mathematical calculation, when the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping.
Claims 6-14 are merely just extensions or variations of the judicial exception, generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment, or insignificant extra-solution activity
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 11 recites a “A computer program product”. Applicant's specification does not limit the interpretation of computer-readable storage medium to solely non-transitory mediums. Accordingly, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer program product recited in the claims may be interpreted as including transitory signals. Transitory signals do not fall within any of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Therefore, claim 15 is directed at non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by XU CN113414406A published 09/21/2021.
Regarding claim 1, A method for generating control data for a device for additive manufacturing of a component in a manufacturing process in which the component is constructed in a construction field in the form of component layers by selective solidification of building material by irradiating the building material with at least one energy beam (XU discloses in claim 1 the method of laser selective melting), the method comprising the steps:
a) obtaining or generating layer information comprising geometric parameters of component layers and/or information relating to scan vectors of solidification regions which represent component layers of the component (XU Fig 2 shows the generated layer information and discloses pg. 6, Example 1, step (3), obtaining layer information from the slicing software),
b) selecting or generating a first filling region for a first solidification region, wherein this filling region has a filling pattern of scan vectors parallel to one another with a predefined vector spacing (XU Fig 2 shows the generating layer information where the scan vectors are parallel to each other),
c) creating a second filling region having a filling pattern of scan vectors parallel to one another for a second solidification region lying on the first solidification region, wherein the scan vectors of the second filling region are aligned to the scan vectors of the first filling region and arranged offset relative thereto, wherein filling patterns of overlapping filling regions differ from one another with respect to an offset longitudinally and transversely with respect to their scan vectors (XU discloses Fig 1. Which shows the scan vectors of section 1 and 2 are overlapping and are offset longitudinally and transversely and pg. 3, step 4 which discloses the vectors being translated perpendicular by .5),
d) generating control data in such a way that the device for additive manufacturing can generate component layers corresponding to the solidification regions using this control data (XU discloses pg. 6, Example 1, step (3) and step (4), obtaining layer information from the slicing software and setting the parameters to produce component layers according to the slicing software).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, comprising after step c) and before step d) the steps:
creating a third filling region from scan vectors parallel to one another for a third solidification region, wherein the third filling region lies above the first filling region and at least partially covers it, and wherein the filling pattern of the third filling region is twisted relative to the filling pattern of the first filling region, in by an angle of rotation of more than 10, wherein the filling pattern of the third filling region is identical to the filling pattern of the first filling region except for the twisting (XU discloses Fig 1. Which shows the scan vectors of section 3 and 4 overlapping and are offset longitudinally and transversely and pg. 3, step 4 which discloses the vectors being translated perpendicular by .5, they are rotated (twisted) at an angel greater than 10 and identical to section 1);
creating a fourth filling region from scan vectors parallel to one another for a fourth solidification region lying on the third solidification region, wherein the scan vectors of the fourth filling region are aligned substantially parallel to the scan vectors of the third filling region and arranged offset relative thereto (XU discloses Fig 1. Which shows the scan vectors of section 3 and 4 are overlapping and are offset longitudinally and transversely and pg. 3, step 4 which discloses the vectors being parallel).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein the scan vectors of the second filling region in a plane of the second solidification region are shifted with respect to the scan vectors of the first filling region in a transverse direction relative to a longitudinal extension of the scan vectors of the first filling region, wherein the corresponding vector spacings of the filling patterns of the filling regions are each identical, wherein a shift distance in the transverse direction is less than the vector spacing between two scan vectors, and lies in the range between 45% and 55% of the vector spacing, and lies below 0.1 mm (XU discloses Fig 1. Which shows the scan vectors of section 3 and 4 are overlapping and are offset longitudinally and transversely and pg. 3, step 4 which discloses the vectors being translated perpendicular by .5 or 50%, they are rotated (twisted) at an angel greater than 10 and identical to section , and pg. 4, under step 5, “scanning interval 45-120μm, powder layer thickness 20-50μm,” where the spacing at .5 the interval is under .1mm or 100 microns).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein a filling pattern is formed of
a hatching consisting of a plurality of scan vectors parallel to one another (XU discloses Fig. 1 which shows a hatching of parallel vectors) or
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein in superimposed solidification regions
filling regions substantially cover the entire surface, wherein filling regions with an identical shape and size substantially cover each other entirely (XU discloses Fig. 1 which shows sections 1/2 substantially being covered by the other sections 3/4),
and/or
filling regions are arranged offset with respect to one another, wherein filling regions with a similar or identical filling pattern are shifted with respect to one another along the scan vectors by a predetermined shift distance (XU discloses Fig.1 which shows the identical patterns being shifted.),
and/or
filling regions are arranged twisted with respect to each other without their filling patterns being co-rotated (XU discloses Fig.1 which shows the identical patterns being twisted.),
and/or
filling patterns of mutually overlapping filling regions differ from one another with respect to an offset along and/or transverse to their scan vectors, and/or with respect to a rotation of their scan vectors (XU discloses Fig.1 which shows the identical patterns overlapping having been translated perpendicularly.),
wherein a shift distance in the longitudinal direction is less than a stripe-width of a filling region in the form of a hatching stripe, and lies in the range between 90% and 10% of the stripe width, and lies in the range between 45% and 55% of the stripe width (XU discloses Fig.1 which shows the identical patterns being shifted at 50% which lies in both ranges.),
and/or
wherein a shift takes place in the transverse direction, and in the longitudinal direction, the shift distance of which is less than a diagonal extension of the first filling region and lies in the range between 45% and 55% of the diagonal extension (XU discloses Fig.1 which shows the identical patterns being shifted 50%.).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein within a filling region and/or between two filling regions lying directly one above each other, the values of a speed, a power, a pulse pattern and/or an intensity distribution, of the energy beam for solidifying a building material are changed during solidification along the scan vectors, wherein the respective values of the number of parameters change between the first filling region and the second filling region and/or the third filling region and the fourth filling region (XU discloses Fig.1 which shows the pattern changing from region 1 to 4).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above, wherein a quality measure is determined from a comparison of pores of test bodies, comprising the steps:
manufacturing a target test body with control data which have been created using a method (XU discloses pg. 6-7 Example 1, using a method… to create a test block),
manufacturing a reference test body with control data at least without an offset arrangement of scan vectors according to step c) of the method (XU pg. 11 comparative example 1, using a method, not using the offset to create a test block),
determining parameter values for parameters of pores of the target test body and the reference test body using the same measuring method, wherein the parameter values of the pores comprise in particular their size and/or their number (XU Fig 3. Shows 4 test blocks with many measurements of different sized pores taken from the examples 1-7 and comparative examples),
creating a comparative measure of the determined parameter values of the target test body and the reference test body (XU pg. 6-7 discloses examples 1 and 2 and Fig.3 disclose generating a density based on creating the text blocks and comparing the pores based on the results),
manufacturing test bodies with control data, wherein layer information is generated or modified such that a vector spacing of scan vectors of the filling regions with respect to one another and/or a scanning speed for these scan vectors is increased and Investigating changes in the comparative measure by comparing the test body with the reference test body in relation to the layer information and creating a comparative measure depending on the layer information(XU pg. 6-7 discloses examples 1 and 2 which use different scanning speeds and temperatures to create different test blocks and Fig.3 disclose generating a density based on creating the text blocks and comparing the pores based on the results),
creating the quality measure based on a number of created comparative measures (XU Fig 3. Shows creating many test blocks and creating densities for all of them to determine the best results).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 8 are discussed above, wherein based on the quality measure, which comprises information about a relationship to layer information, the obtained or generated layer information is modified by increasing the vector spacing of scan vectors of the filling regions with respect to one another and/or by increasing the scanning speed for these scan vectors, and the steps of the method are carried out based on the modified or generated layer information (XU pg. 6-7 examples 1 and 2 discloses changing the scanning speed from 400mm/s to 200mm/s and how it decreases the quality of the block).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 contains the limitations of “at least four times this thickness, and a solidification has a depth extension greater than 0.05 mm, wherein the solidification takes place in the form of a deep welding process.” which was not found in any of the found prior art.
The most relevant art found contained the following:
EP3750651A1 ¶13 discloses a depth that requires less than 50 micron or .05 mm and does not disclose greater than 0.05 mm.
US 20210387284 A1 ¶7 discloses “deep welding” (“keyhole mode welding”) but not a specific depth.
US 20210001561 A1 ¶3 discloses a depth extension on 2 and 3 times as great but not 4 times as required by the limitation.
No art discloses the limitations of claim 7 entirely and would thus be allowable if moved up into claim 1 and the other rejections of claim 1 were resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR D COUSINEAU whose telephone number is (571)447-9620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/C.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2115 /KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights