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 .
Claims 16-31 are currently pending. Claims 16-31 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 07, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood, Applicant argues that the combination of prior is not compatible due to the structure, and that the modifications would result in negative consequences. The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. MPEP 2141.03, I discusses the level of ordinary skill in the art. Particularly, one of ordinary skill is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton… [I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle… Office personnel may also take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ’”. In other words, if one of ordinary skill desires to incorporate the teachings of Dai into Haverstick, one of ordinary skill would have the creativity to do so. Applicant’s arguments that the modifications are too substantial and one of ordinary skill would not be able to combine the prior arts are assertions that are not supported by any evidence on record. The art does not need to explicitly illustrate the combination for the modification to be considered proper. The speculations made about the properties of Haverstick’s housing are also unsupported. MPEP 2145, I states arguments presented cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The discussion appears to draw upon assumptions about both the purpose of Haverstick and resulting disadvantages without citing the art of record or the provision of additional evidence. If Applicant is suggesting Haverstick teaches away from the modification, evidence in Haverstick needs to be cited to support the speculations and assertions made.
Additionally, MPEP 2145, III states that the “test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference… Rather the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” In this instance, a visual inspection of whether Dai physically fits in Haverstick is not relevant to the obviousness of the modification to obtain the benefit of sourcing air noted in the modification in Pg. 6-7 of the Non-Final Rejection. As noted above, the purpose of obviousness is not to bodily incorporate one reference into another.
Regarding Claim 30, Applicant provides the same arguments as in Claim 16. The arguments are found to be unpersuasive for the same reasons set forth above.
No further arguments have been provided regarding the remaining dependent claims.
It is noted Applicant mentions but has not discussed the “nozzle part” amendment. Applicant is reminded that although claims are to be interpreted in light of the disclosure, it would be improper to import limitations which are not claimed. In other words, if Applicant believes there to be a difference between the intended meaning and the broadest reasonable interpretation taken in the rejection, the distinctions should be recited in the claim rather than assumed from the figures of the application.
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.
Claim 26 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.
Regarding Claim 26, Lines 1-2 recite “the second space”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it has not been previously introduced. It is unclear what space the claim intends to refer to. Note that the dependency of Claim 26 has been amended and is missing annotations that reflect the amended dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-20, 23, 27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haverstick (US 2,382,564 A), hereinafter Haverstick, in view of Dai et al. (US 2023/0003131 A1), hereinafter Dai, and Bremer et al. (US 6,257,834 B1), hereinafter Bremer.
Regarding Claim 16, Figure 1 of Haverstick teaches a gas turbine (see Pg. 1 Left Col., Lines 1-9) comprising a turbine wheel (2) having a rotation axis (horizontal along center of 2), a first side and a second side, said sides being opposite sides in a direction of the rotation axis, wherein the turbine wheel (2) comprises a plurality of first openings at the first side and a number of second openings at the second side, wherein each one of the first openings is in a fluid communication, via at least one fluid channel (18, 20), with at least one of the number of second openings, wherein the at least one fluid channel (18, 20) comprises at least one curved portion (18 and 20 are both curved), and a shaft position at the first side for attaching a shaft, wherein the first openings are arranged to a different position with respect to the shaft position (Pg. 1 Right Col., Lines 5-42). See also annotated Figure 1’ below.
PNG
media_image1.png
948
1308
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Haverstick does not expressly teach the gas turbine further comprising at least one second fluid channel arranged for providing cooling fluid to be supplied to the first openings from a fluid source as claimed. However, a second fluid channel would have been obvious in view of Dai.
Figures 1C-D of Dai teach a turbine comprising at least one second fluid channel (301, 119) arranged for providing cooling fluid to be supplied to first openings (38) from a fluid source, and the at least one second fluid channel comprises at least one nozzle part (comprising channels 301). The fluid source may be a compressor. The flow helps form a purge flow to cool the turbine [0029-0030]. Thus, Dai provides a known way in which fluid used for openings (38) is sourced that additionally is known to improve cooling. Meanwhile, Haverstick is silent regarding where the air in space (22) is sourced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gas turbine taught by Haverstick with at least one second fluid channel arranged for providing cooling fluid to be supplied to the first openings from a fluid source, and the at least one second fluid channel comprises a nozzle part as suggested by Dai, to provide the benefit of giving a source for air that cools the turbine.
Haverstick and Dai do not expressly teach the gas turbine comprises a controllable valve in the second fluid channel for controlling a flow of the cooling fluid as claimed. However, a valve would have been obvious in view of Bremmer.
Figures 1 and 7 of Bremmer teach a gas turbine wherein a second fluid channel (40) provides cooling fluid (41) to a first side (adjacent space 24) of the turbine wheel (11). The turbine comprises a controllable valve (45) in the second fluid channel (40) for controlling a flow of the cooling fluid (41). The valve (45) allows for control of the cooling fluid (41) so that the cooling effect may be adapted to the expected operating conditions of the turbine (Col. 6, Lines 15-26). In other words, so that the amount of cooling can be controlled as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine taught by Haverstick-Dai with a controllable valve in the second fluid channel for controlling a flow of the cooling fluid as suggested by Bremmer, to provide the benefit of adapting the cooling effect to the conditions of the turbine.
Regarding Claim 17, Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 16.
Figure 1 of Haverstick teaches wherein the at least one curved portion (20) has a shape that conforms with a shape of an edge of a blade (either curved dotted line portion or outer curved edge of 2) of the turbine wheel (2).
Regarding Claim 18, Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 16.
Figure 1 of Haverstick teaches wherein the first openings are arranged unaligned with respect to the shaft position in the direction of the rotation axis. See annotated Figure 1’ above.
Regarding Claim 19, Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 16.
Figure 1 of Haverstick teaches wherein the turbine wheel (2) comprises a first surface (on the first side) at the first side being substantially perpendicular with respect to the rotation axis (horizontal direction of Figure 1), wherein the first openings are arranged to the first surface. See also annotated Figure 1’ above.
Regarding Claim 20, Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 16.
Figure 1 of Haverstick teaches wherein the turbine wheel (2) comprises a shaft portion extending in the direction of the rotation axis at the first side and away from the second side, the shaft portion defining a side surface and the shaft position. See also annotated Figure 1’ above. The shaft portion is interpretable as a portion extending from the shaft position location.
Regarding Claim 23, Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 16.
The modification in Claim 16 by Dai results wherein the fluid source is a compressor of the turbine. As noted in Claim 16 above, Dai provides a source for fluid. Paragraph [0029] of Dai notes the compressor being a source.
Regarding Claim 27, Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 20.
The modification in Claim 16 by Dai results wherein the nozzle part (comprising channels 301) is arranged around the shaft portion (portion of 111), as exemplified in Figure 1D of Dai [0030]. This is equivalent to the portion extending from shaft position location in Haverstick (annotated Figure 1’ above).
Regarding Claim 29, Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 16.
The modification in Claim 16 by Bremmer results wherein the flow of cooling fluid (41) is controlled, by the controllable valve (45) based on a determined inlet temperature of the turbine wheel, as exemplified by Figures 1 and 7 of Bremmer. Col. 6, Lines 15-26 state the cooling effect is adapted to the temperature conditions of the turbine (2). The inlet temperature of the wheel is a temperature condition of the turbine.
Regarding Claim 30, Figure 1 of Haverstick teaches a method for providing cooling to a turbine wheel (2) of a gas turbine (see Pg. 1 Left Col., Lines 1-9), the method comprising: obtaining a turbine wheel (2) having a rotation axis (horizontal along center of 2), a first side and a second side, said sides being opposite sides in a direction of the rotation axis, and comprising a plurality of first openings at the first side and a number of second openings at the second side, wherein the first openings are in a fluid communication, via at least one fluid channel (18, 20), with at least one of the number of second openings, the at least one fluid channel (18, 20) comprising at least one curved portion (18 and 20 are both curved), and a shaft position at the first side for attaching a shaft, the first openings are arranged to a different position with respect to the shaft position (Pg. 1 Right Col., Lines 5-42). See also annotated Figure 1’ above.
Haverstick does not expressly teach arranging at least one second fluid channel for providing cooling fluid to be supplied to the first openings from a fluid source, and the at least one second fluid channel comprises a nozzle part as claimed. However, a second fluid channel would have been obvious in view of Dai.
Figures 1C-D of Dai teach a method comprising arranging at least one second fluid channel (301, 119) for providing cooling fluid to be supplied to first openings (38) from a fluid source, and the at least one second fluid channel comprises at least one nozzle part (comprising channels 301). The flow helps form a purge flow to cool the turbine [0029-0030]. Thus, Dai provides a known way in which fluid used for openings (38) is sourced that additionally is known to improve cooling. Meanwhile, Haverstick is silent regarding where the air in space (22) is sourced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Haverstick with arranging at least one second fluid channel for providing cooling fluid to be supplied to the first openings from a fluid source, and the at least one second fluid channel comprises a nozzle part as suggested by Dai, to provide the benefit of giving a source for air that cools the turbine.
Haverstick and Dai do not expressly teach wherein the gas turbine comprises a controllable valve in the second fluid channel for controlling a flow of the cooling fluid as claimed. However, a valve would have been obvious in view of Bremmer.
Figures 1 and 7 of Bremmer teach a gas turbine wherein a second fluid channel (40) provides cooling fluid (41) to a first side (adjacent space 24) of the turbine wheel (11). The turbine comprises a controllable valve (45) in the second fluid channel (40) for controlling a flow of the cooling fluid (41). The valve (45) allows for control of the cooling fluid (41) so that the cooling effect may be adapted to the expected operating conditions of the turbine (Col. 6, Lines 15-26). In other words, so that the amount of cooling can be controlled as desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further method taught by Haverstick-Dai such that the gas turbine comprises a controllable valve in the second fluid channel for controlling a flow of the cooling fluid as suggested by Bremmer, to provide the benefit of adapting the cooling effect to the conditions of the turbine.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer as applied to Claim 20 above, and further in view of Aurahs et al. (US 2020/0300115 A1), hereinafter Aurahs.
Regarding Claim 21, Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 20.
Haverstick does not expressly teach wherein the openings are on the side surface of the shaft portion as claimed. However, such a location would have been obvious in view of Aurahs.
Figures 1B and 2 of Aurahs teaches wheel embodiments wherein an opening (11) is on the side surface of the shaft portion. The openings are to passages (4) that extend through the respective wheel [0026-0027]. Thus, Aurahs exemplifies that the placement of the opening on the side surface of the shaft portion also is a feasible location for passages that go through wheels of turbines. In other words, if a cooling passage is desired, the opening for the cooling fluid does not necessarily have to be in the exact location illustrated in Haverstick, but the opening may be in a different location instead. One of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known opening locations with the predictable result of allowing for the entrance of fluid into passages of the wheel for purposes of cooling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine taught by Haverstick-Dai-Bremmer such that the openings are on the side surface of the shaft portion as exemplified by Aurahs, since one of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known locations for openings that predictably result in cooling fluid flowing through the passages of the openings.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Beach et al. (US 2018/0010483 A1), hereinafter Beach.
Regarding Claim 22, Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 16.
Haverstick does not expressly teach wherein the plurality of first openings are arranged evenly around the shaft position as claimed. However, an even arrangement would have been obvious in view of Beach.
Figures 2-3 of Beach teach an apparatus for a turbine wherein openings (152) are arranged evenly. Beach contemplates that the openings may either be evenly or unevenly distributed depending on how it is desired for the cooling flow to be distributed. An even distribution allows for an equal amount of cooling flow to flow into all areas of the second region (144). Meanwhile, an uneven distribution allows for a more targeted cooling [0047]. In other words, an even distribution allows for even cooling while an uneven distribution allows for targeted cooling. While the holes are not formed in the same part, the teachings of Beach are still considered analogous art, since they are in the same field of endeavor (cooling) and reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor (how the distribution of cooling openings affect cooling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine taught by Haverstick-Dai-Bremmer such that the plurality of first openings are arranged evenly around the shaft position as suggested by Beach, to provide the benefit of allowing for an equal amount of cooling flow to be distributed around the shaft position.
Claims 24-25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Birmann (US 2,283,176 A), hereinafter Birmann.
Regarding Claim 24, Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 16.
The modification in Claim 16 by Dai results wherein an end of the second fluid channel (301) is arranged to a space at the first side of the turbine wheel, as exemplified in Figure 1D of Dai with the left end (301) ending in a space at the first side (115) of the turbine wheel. Note the first openings (38) are arranged to face the space. Figure 1 of Haverstick also teaches the first openings are arranged to face the space (22). See also annotated Figure 1’ above.
Haverstick does not expressly teach the space being between the turbine wheel and a body part of the turbine, wherein the turbine wheel is configured to be rotated with respect to the body part. However, such parts would have been obvious in view of Birmann.
Pg. 1 Right Col., Lines 5-24 of Haverstick explicitly recite the type of turbine rotor taught in Birmann is what is illustrated. Haverstick then states that parts with no bearing to the invention described by Haverstick are simply not illustrated. To see the remaining parts that have merely not been illustrated, one of ordinary skill would turn to the cited source. Figure 1 of Birmann illustrates a turbine wheel (34) with more structure of behind said wheel. Any portion behind the wheel (34) (i.e. to the left 34) adjacent the space behind is interpretable as a body part of the turbine required by the claim. The turbine wheel (34) is configured to be rotated with respect to the body part (Pg. 2 Right Col., Lines 63-69). One of ordinary skill would simply substitute the non-illustrated portions of Haverstick with the illustrated portions of Birmann, with the predictable result of obtaining a functioning turbine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine taught by Haverstick-Dai-Bremmer by simply substituting the non-illustrated portions for illustrated portions in Birmann to result in the space being between the turbine wheel and a body part of the turbine, wherein the turbine wheel is configured to be rotated with respect to the body part as exemplified by Birmann, predictably resulting in a functioning turbine by merely providing the parts that were not chosen to be illustrated in Haverstick.
Regarding Claim 25, Haverstick, Dai, Bremmer, and Birmann teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 24.
Figure 1 of Haverstick teaches a shaft arranged to the shaft position of the turbine wheel (2). See also the annotated Figure 1’ above.
Haverstick does not expressly teach a compressor arranged on the shaft, wherein the body part is arranged between the compressor and the turbine wheel, and the shaft is arranged to be rotated with respect to the body part, wherein the second fluid channel is arranged between the compressor and the space along a second space between the shaft and the body part as claimed. However, such structure would have been obvious in view of Birmann for the same reasons set forth in Claim 24 above.
As stated above, Pg. 1 Right Col., Lines 5-24 of Haverstick explicitly recite the type of turbine rotor taught in Birmann is what is illustrated. Figure 1 of Birmann shows a compressor (10, 12) arranged on the shaft (8), wherein the body part (any part between 10, 12 and 34) is arranged between the compressor (10, 12) and the turbine wheel (34), and the shaft (8) is arranged to be rotated with respect to the body part (Pg. 2 Right Col., Lines 30-69). The combination has the second fluid channel arranged between the compressor and the space along a second space between the shaft and the body part as claimed. Figure 1D of Dai teaches the second fluid channel (301, 119) of the combination. The region right behind the turbine wheel it is illustrated in overlaps with the claimed portion. See for instance, behind the wheel is to the left of wheel (34) in Figure 1 of Birmann.
Regarding Claim 31, Haverstick, Dai, Bremmer, and Birmann teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 25.
The modification in Claim 16 by Dai results wherein the nozzle part (comprising channels 301) is arranged around the shaft (111), as exemplified in Figure 1D of Dai [0030]
Claim 26, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haverstick, Dai, Bremmer, and Birmann as applied to Claim 24 above, and further in view of Chekansky (US 2015/0233299 A1), hereinafter Chekansky.
Regarding Claim 26, Haverstick, Dai, Bremmer, and Birmann teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 24.
Haverstick does not expressly teach wherein the second space comprises a sealing as claimed. However, a sealing would have been obvious in view of Chekansky.
Figures 1-2 of Chekansky teach a turbine wheel wherein the second space comprises a sealing (42). The seal (42) helps create a tortuous path that helps prevent leakage [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine taught by Haverstick-Dai-Bremmer-Birmann such that the second space comprises a sealing as suggested by Chekansky, to provide the benefit of preventing any leakage into the second space from another portion of the turbine.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haverstick, Dai, and Bremmer as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Beach.
Regarding Claim 28, Haverstick, Dai, Bremmer, and Birmann teach the gas turbine as set forth in Claim 16.
The modification in Claim 16 by Dai results wherein the nozzle part comprises a plurality of openings (opening ends of 301) for injecting cooling fluid into the space, as exemplified by Figure 1D of Dai injecting cooling fluid into the space behind the side (115) of the turbine wheel [0029-0030].
Haverstick-Dai does not expressly teach injecting the cooling fluid evenly as claimed. However, an even injection would have been obvious in view of Beach.
Figures 2-3 of Beach teach an apparatus for a turbine wherein openings (152) are for injecting cooling fluid evenly into the space (144). Beach contemplates that the openings may either be evenly or unevenly distributed depending on how it is desired for the cooling flow to be distributed. An even distribution allows for an equal amount of cooling flow to flow into all areas of the second region (144). Meanwhile, an uneven distribution allows for a more targeted cooling [0047]. In other words, an even distribution injecting flow allows for even cooling while an uneven distribution injecting flow allows for targeted cooling. While the openings are not formed in the same part, the teachings of Beach are still considered analogous art, since they are in the same field of endeavor (cooling) and reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor (how the distribution of cooling openings affect cooling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the gas turbine taught by Haverstick-Dai-Bremmer such that the openings are for injecting the cooling fluid evenly into the space as suggested by Beach, to provide the benefit of allowing for an equal amount of cooling flow to be distributed about the space.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745