DETAILED ACTION
Amendment filed 10 April 2026 has been entered. The amendment overcomes all claim objections. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 1-2, Applicant argues that Bhaskar (US 2017/0184139) does not disclose “switches the direction of the working fluid flowing between the hydraulic pump motor and the head-end port.” Specifically, arguing that Bhaskar’s pump 14 and “the shuttle valve 52 in Bhaskar functions to switch the connection target of charge pump 62 between the head port and the rod port of the actuator 24. In other words, the shuttle valve 52 does not switch the direction of the working fluid flowing between the pump 14 and the head port of the actuator 24.”
Applicant has failed to show how their disclosed invention differs from the Bhaskar interpretation of the claims. The above interpretation of the claim under Bhaskar is entirely aligned with applicant’s disclosed invention. Applicant’s figures 3 and figures 4 clearly show the change of direction as the flow switching between the head-end port 2a and rod-end port 2b (See drawing below).
PNG
media_image1.png
554
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s fig 3, flow into head-end port 2a
PNG
media_image2.png
492
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s fig 4, flow into rod-end port 2b
Furthermore, Applicant explicitly discloses the claimed switching direction as applicant’s control valve (13) changing the connection of the pump between the head-end port (2a) and the rod-end port (2b). In applicant’s filed specification (par 0018-0019, 0059, 0069; applicant’s fig 3 and fig 4), applicant recites:
“The directional control valve 13 switches the direction of the working fluid flowing between the hydraulic pump motor 11 and the head-end port 2a (par 0018). … The directional control valve 13 switches the connection target of the head-end port 2a between the discharge port 11b and the suction port 11a… when connecting the head-end port 2a to the discharge port 11b, the directional control valve 13 connects the rod-end port 2b to the tank 20. On the other hand, when connecting the head-end port 2a to the suction port 11a, the directional control valve 13 connects the rod-end port 2b to the discharge port 11b (par 0019).”
Therefore, applicant’s allegation that Bhaskar has a different configuration and function is not persuasive. Instead, it is reasonable to conclude that Bhaskar discloses the same configuration and function as applicant’s disclosed invention.
Pg 2, Applicant argues that Bhaskar disclosing measuring “a pressure differential between the conduits 18 and 20” (at the inlet and outlet of the pump 14, See Bhaskar fig 2) does not make obvious using a pressure sensor to measure the inflow pressure at the pump. Applicant alleges that Bhaskar discloses controlling the regenerative valve (44) for “an overload center load condition” according to “motor load and speed, rather than based on an inflow pressure of working fluid measured by a pressure sensor.”
Applicant’s argument is not convincing. While Bhaskar does disclose using “speed and current feedback signal to detect the occurrence of over-center (par 0088),” it allows, “additionally or alternatively, a variety of sensors such as pressure sensors … to detect the occurrence of an over-center load condition (par 0088).” Applicant has focused on one embodiment of Bhaskar using a “motor load and speed,” and overlooked the embodiments using differential pressure to control the regenerative valve (44). Bhaskar explicitly disclose “a shuttle valve that is responsive to a pressure differential between first and second conduits for connecting the charge pump system in fluid communication with one of the first and second chambers, upon the occurrence of an over-center load condition the shuttle valve switching positions.” (Bhaskar, par 0029). Bhaskar’s disclosure of the shuttle valve responsive to a pressure differential upon occurrence of the over-center load (par 0029) and the disclosure of pressure sensors used to detect the over-center (par 0088) clearly suggests the use of a pressure sensor to detect the pressure differential between first and second conduits at the inlet and outlet of the pump.
Based on the above, applicant’s assertion that Bhaskar must determine the state of the regenerative valve based on motor load and speed is not convincing. It is reasonable to conclude that Bhaskar makes obvious the use of a pressure sensor as claimed.
Pg 3, applicant argues that Bhaskar detecting an over-center load condition using a pressure sensor, “merely detects whether an over-center load occurs, and is not used to measure values of various states during an over-center load condition.” Applicant is arguing unclaimed subject matter, when arguing that the pressure sensor must “measure values of various states.” The limitation is “the control device controls an opening degree of the regeneration valve according to the inflow pressure of the working fluid that is measured by the pressure sensor.” There is no claimed requirement that the pressure sensor “measure values of various states.” A plain language interpretation of the limitation is clearly met by a pressure sensor mearing the inflow pressure of the liquid.
Pg 3, applicant further argues that the “controlling the state of regeneration valve 44 based on an operating quadrant or load condition is not equivalent to controlling the opening degree of the regeneration valve according to a pressure measurement value obtained from a pressure sensor.“ Applicant is arguing unclaimed subject matter, there is nothing in the claim that excludes Bhaskar from additionally determining an operating quadrant or load condition. Applicant uses an open claim format which allows apparatus that includes elements that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention (See MPEP 2111.03; 2163(II)(A)(1)). Bhaskar uses the measured pressure to also be used to determine an operating quadrant or load which does not affect whether or not Bhaskar also uses the pressure sensor to control the opening of the regeneration valve as claimed. Applicant’s argument is not convincing. The rejection is maintained on this point also.
Pg 3, applicant argues that while Bhaskar generally mentions the use of a pressure sensor to detect an over-center load condition, Bhaskar is silent on the specific manner in which such detection is performed, and therefore it is unclear whether the pressure sensor is disposed as speculated by the examiner. And that the examiner’s conclusion is based on speculation rather than explicit or implicit teaching of Bhaskar. Applicant’s argument is not convincing “speculation” was not the standard for the rejection; rather the rejection was based under a 103 obviousness standard.
An obviousness rejection considers (A) the scope and content of the prior art, (B) the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art and (C) resolves the level of ordinary skill in the prior art (MPEP 2141).
In this case, (a) Bhaskar teaches the pressure sensor (Bhaskar, par 0088) and responsiveness to a pressure differential (Bhaskar, par 0029, 0051, 0062, 0072). (B) Bhaskar does not disclose the exact position of the pressure sensor. (C) However, the teaching that a differential pressure measurement (18/20) and the pressure sensor is a teaching-suggestion-motivation to depose pressure sensors in a position to measure said differential pressure. A person of ordinary skill in the art would place pressure sensors in the conduits (first and second conduits 18/20) in order to measure the differential pressure as suggested by the prior art. Since those first and second conduits (fig 1, 18/20) are at the inlet and outlet of pump 14, pressure sensors on the first and second conduits would reasonably measure the inflow pressure passing through either of said first or second conduit.
Applicant’s argument is not convincing. The rejection is an obviousness rejection, incorporating teaching-suggestion-motivations contained within the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2141). The obviousness rejection is not based on mere speculation that a pressure sensor is implicitly disposed in the claimed location, rather the rejection uses an obviousness standard and incorporates what the prior art would suggest to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, the obviousness rejection is maintained.
Applicant does not provide any further arguments for the dependent claims.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1-10 are maintained.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
PNG
media_image3.png
394
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s fig 1
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaskar (US 2017/0184139).
PNG
media_image4.png
556
830
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Bhaskar fig 2
Claim 1, Bhaskar discloses a hydraulic drive device (fig 2, system 10, par 0046) that drives a hydraulic cylinder (actuator 24) by supplying and draining a working fluid (hydraulic fluid) to and from each of a head-end port (port on piston side of cylinder to 32) and a rod-end port (port on rod side of cylinder to 30) of the hydraulic cylinder, the hydraulic drive device comprising:
a hydraulic pump motor (14) that discharges the working fluid (pump 24 displaces fluid, par 0008, 0055) and is rotatably driven by the working fluid (fig 3b, pump 14 acts as a hydraulic motor, par 0056, 0071);
an electric motor (12) connected to the hydraulic pump motor (par 0045);
a directional control valve (52, par 0051) that switches a direction of the working fluid flowing between the hydraulic pump motor and the head-end port (par 0055-0056);
a regeneration valve (44, par 0048) that opens and closes a regeneration passage (passage between 32 and 30 controlled by regeneration valve 44, par 0048) connecting the head-end port and the rod-end port;
a pressure sensor (pressure sensors, par 0088; pressure sensor to detect over-center load condition, par 0088); and
a control device (controller 40, 48, par 0051) that controls an operation of each of the directional control valve (controls shuttle valve 52, par 0051-0052, 0063, 0067) and the regeneration valve (controller 40 controls regeneration valve 44 to maintain a velocity of the actuator, par 0012, 0089), wherein:
when causing the regeneration valve to open the regeneration passage and causing the directional control valve to connect the head-end port and the hydraulic pump motor (controls opening shuttle valve 52 once detecting over-center position, par 0088; pressure sensors are used to detect over-center load position, par 0088; valve 52 shifts automatically for pressure differential, par 0062).
Bhaskar is silent on “the pressure sensor measures inflow pressure at the hydraulic pump motor,”… “the control device controls an opening degree of the regeneration valve according to the inflow pressure of the working fluid that is measured by the pressure sensor.”
Nevertheless, Bhaskar teaches the pressure in conduit 20 having a pressure higher than conduit 18 indicates over-center condition, (par 0056). Reasonably, detecting a pressure difference between conduits 18 and 20 would require a device that measures pressure at both 18 and 20; which would meet the plain meaning of sensor under a BRI. The pressure measuring device at channel (18 or 20) would measure inflow pressure at the hydraulic pump motor depending on the pump’s (14) direction of rotation (pump 14 can flow in either direction, par 0045). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure a pressure sensor of Bhaskar for the expected result of measuring the input to the pump 14.
Furthermore, Bhaskar teaches the control device controls an opening degree of the regeneration valve (controls regeneration valve 44 in response to feedback for an over-center load condition to maintain a velocity of the actuator, par 0089), wherein pressure sensors are used to detect over-center load position (par 0088). Reasonably, determining the differential pressure that indicates the over-center condition (par 0056-0057) reasonably is based upon the inflow pressure to the pump because the differential pressure is between conduit (18) and conduit (20) on the inlet / outlet ports of the pump.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure controller of Bhaskar for the expected result of controlling valve (44) in response to the pressure sensor at the input to the pump (14).
Claim 2, Bhaskar teaches the hydraulic drive device according to claim 1, wherein:
when an inflow load calculated according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor (high load pressure from rod side 30 is measured while the pump 14 brakes the load, par 0088), a rotational speed of the electric motor is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (speed of the motor in generator mode, par 0071, 0074, 0077, 0089; in electrical generation mode the motor acts as a generator, in electrical generator mode all energy is provided by the fluid such that all rotational speed above zero is provided by fluid energy; therefore when in electrical generator mode, the motor is rotating above a predetermined zero rotation with zero energy production).
Bhaskar is silent on the control device reduces the opening degree of the regeneration valve.
Nevertheless, under Bhaskar a rotational speed of the electric motor greater than or equal to a predetermined value reasonably indicates that the pump is receiving rotational energy from the fluid, thereby rotating with a velocity faster than if it were not receiving energy. In this state the pump is acting as a motor and driving the electric motor/generator to generate electricity (quadrants 4, par 0071). In order to operate in quadrant 4, the controller opens regeneration valve 44 (par 0089) which maintains a velocity of the actuator (par 0089, 0093). Therefore, in a pressure status indicating quadrant 4, the speed of the pump is higher than the threshold required to generate electricity, and in quadrant 4 the regeneration valve 44 is opened in ordered to maintain operation in quadrant 4.
Claim 3, Bhaskar teaches the hydraulic drive device according to claim 1, wherein:
when an inflow load calculated according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor (high load pressure from rod side 30 is measured while the pump 14 brakes the load, par 0088) and a rotational speed of the electric motor is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (speed of the motor in generator mode, par 0071, 0074, 0077, 0089; in electrical generation mode the motor acts as a generator, in electrical generator mode all energy is provided by the fluid such that all rotational speed above zero is provided by fluid energy; therefore when in electrical generator mode, the motor is rotating above a predetermined zero rotation with zero energy production), the control device causes the directional control valve to reduce an opening degree between the head-end port and the hydraulic pump motor (valve 52 connects chamber 30 to the pump 14 instead of connecting chamber 32; valve 52 closing the connection to 32 meets the plain meaning of “reduces the opening degree” under a BRI).
Claim 4, Bhaskar teaches the hydraulic drive device according to claim 1, wherein:
Bhaskar is silent on wherein: the control device controls the rotational speed of the electric motor according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor.
Nevertheless, Bhaskar teaches that in normal EHA operation, the rod-side chamber 30 is opened to expose the pump 14 to high load pressure while the pump 14 “brakes” the load and accurately controls the actuator velocity (par 0088). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “braking” load indicates that the pump 14 is resisting the high load pressure, but moving in the same direction of flow. Therefore, in this case, the high load pressure meets the claimed “inflow pressure.”
The specification further explains that the pump (14) “accurately controls the actuator velocity,” while in other parts of the discloser, Bhaskar explains that the pump controller (par 0020, 0027) controls actuator velocity by varying its pump speed to create the desired flow rate (par 0020, 0022, 0027). Therefore, implicitly the system achieves accurate actuator velocity control by modifying pump speed (14, par 0027, 0090).
It would have been implicit or obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Bhaskar controller to control the velocity of the actuator with pump speed (par 0026) using the pressure of high load pressure at the pump (par 0088) as the pressure feedback to the controller to determine pump speed (par 0028); thereby making obvious the claim limitation “control device controls the rotational speed of the electric motor according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor.”
Claim 5, Bhaskar teaches the hydraulic drive device according to claim 1, wherein:
a pump capacity of the hydraulic pump motor is changeable (pump speed changes which inherently changes the flow/capacity through the pump; par 0020, 0022, 0027). Bhaskar is silent on the control device controls the pump capacity of the hydraulic pump motor according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor.
Nevertheless, Bhaskar teaches that in normal EHA operation, the rod-side chamber 30 is opened to expose the pump 14 to high load pressure while the pump 14 “brakes” the load and accurately controls the actuator velocity (par 0088). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “braking” load indicates that the pump 14 is resisting the high load pressure, but moving in the same direction of flow. Therefore, in this case, the high load pressure could reasonably meet the claimed “inflow pressure.”
The specification further explains that the pump (14) “accurately controls the actuator velocity,” while in other parts of the discloser, Bhaskar explains that the pump controller (par 0020, 0027) controls actuator velocity by varying its pump speed (capacity inherently varies with pump speed) to create the desired flow rate (par 0020, 0022, 0027). Therefore, implicitly the system achieves accurate actuator velocity control by modifying pump speed/capacity (14, par 0027, 0090).
It would have been implicit or obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Bhaskar controller to control the velocity of the actuator with pump speed/capacity (par 0026) using the pressure of high load pressure at the pump (par 0088); thereby making obvious the claim limitation “control device controls the pump capacity of the hydraulic pump motor according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor.”
Claim 6, Bhaskar teaches the hydraulic drive device according to claim 1, further comprising:
an unloader valve (dump valve 46, par 0048), wherein:
the hydraulic pump motor includes a discharge port through which the working fluid is discharged and a suction port through which the working fluid is drawn in (either port of pump 14 to channel 18 or 20 can be either the suction or discharge dependent on pump direction; pump 14 can flow in either direction, par 0045);
the directional control valve switches a connection target of each of the head-end port and the rod-end port between the discharge port and the suction port (shuttle valve 52 controls the pump 14 connection to the low pressure conduit 54, par 0051; inherently shuttle valve 52 prevents the connection of the discharging port of pump 14 to the low pressure conduit 54 while shuttle valve 562 also connects the sucking port of pump 14 to the low pressure conduit 54);
the unloader valve connects, to a tank (fig 2, 66), a discharge passage (either 18 or 20 is the discharge of pump 14 dependent on direction of pump 14) connecting the discharge port and the directional control valve (the pump discharge is connected to port 52 via passage 56 or 58, par 0051; examiner notes that the term “connected” is under a BRI, discharge flow from pump 14 is stopped by valve 52, the term “connected” does not require fluid flow through the shuttle valve 52); and
when causing the directional control valve (52) to connect the head-end port (32) to the suction port, the control device actuates the unloader valve (46; “the flow from head-side chamber 32 of the actuator 24 will be throttled through to the dump valve 46 and then will flow through the shuttle valve 52 to feed the inlet of the pump 14, par 0085).
Claim 7, Bhaskar teaches the hydraulic drive device according to claim 2, wherein:
when the inflow load calculated according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor (high load pressure from rod side 30 is measured while the pump 14 brakes the load, par 0088) and the rotational speed of the electric motor is greater than or equal to [the] predetermined value (speed of the motor in generator mode, par 0071, 0074, 0077, 0089; in electrical generation mode the motor acts as a generator, in electrical generator mode all energy is provided by the fluid such that all rotational speed above zero is provided by fluid energy; therefore when in electrical generator mode, the motor is rotating above a predetermined zero rotation with zero energy production), the control device causes the directional control valve (52) to reduce an opening degree between the head-end port and the hydraulic pump motor (valve 52 connects chamber 30 to the pump 14 instead of connecting chamber 32; valve 52 closing the connection to 32 meets the plain meaning of “reduces the opening degree” under a BRI).
Claim 8, Bhaskar teaches the hydraulic drive device according to claim 2.
Bhaskar is silent on wherein: the control device controls the rotational speed of the electric motor according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor.
Nevertheless, Bhaskar teaches that in normal EHA operation, the rod-side chamber 30 is opened to expose the pump 14 to high load pressure while the pump 14 “brakes” the load and accurately controls the actuator velocity (par 0088). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “braking” load indicates that the pump 14 is resisting the high load pressure, but moving in the same direction of flow. Therefore, in this case, the high load pressure could reasonably meet the claimed “inflow pressure.”
The specification further explains that the pump (14) “accurately controls the actuator velocity,” while in other parts of the discloser, Bhaskar explains that the pump controller (par 0020, 0027) controls actuator velocity by varying its pump speed to create the desired flow rate (par 0020, 0022, 0027). Therefore, implicitly the system achieves accurate actuator velocity control by modifying pump speed (14, par 0027, 0090).
It would have been implicit or obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Bhaskar controller to control the velocity of the actuator with pump speed (par 0026) using the pressure of high load pressure at the pump (par 0088) as the pressure feedback to the controller to determine pump speed (par 0028); thereby making obvious the claim limitation “control device controls the rotational speed of the electric motor according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor.”
Claim 9, Bhaskar teaches the hydraulic drive device according to claim 2, wherein:
a pump capacity of the hydraulic pump motor is changeable (pump speed changes which inherently changes the flow/capacity through the pump; par 0020, 0022, 0027). Bhaskar is silent on the control device controls the pump capacity of the hydraulic pump motor according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor.
Nevertheless, Bhaskar teaches that in normal EHA operation, the rod-side chamber 30 is opened to expose the pump 14 to high load pressure while the pump 14 “brakes” the load and accurately controls the actuator velocity (par 0088). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “braking” load indicates that the pump 14 is resisting the high load pressure, but moving in the same direction of flow. Therefore, in this case, the high load pressure could reasonably meet the claimed “inflow pressure.”
The specification further explains that the pump (14) “accurately controls the actuator velocity,” while in other parts of the discloser, Bhaskar explains that the pump controller (par 0020, 0027) controls actuator velocity by varying its pump speed (capacity inherently varies with pump speed) to create the desired flow rate (par 0020, 0022, 0027). Therefore, implicitly the system achieves accurate actuator velocity control by modifying pump speed/capacity (14, par 0027, 0090).
It would have been implicit or obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the Bhaskar controller to control the velocity of the actuator with pump speed/capacity (par 0026) using the pressure of high load pressure at the pump (par 0088); thereby making obvious the claim limitation “control device controls the pump capacity of the hydraulic pump motor according to the inflow pressure measured by the pressure sensor.”
Claim 10, Bhaskar teaches the hydraulic drive device according to claim 2, further comprising:
an unloader valve (dump valve 46, par 0048), wherein:
the hydraulic pump motor includes a discharge port through which the working fluid is discharged and a suction port through which the working fluid is drawn in (either port of pump 14 to channel 18 or 20 can be either the suction or discharge dependent on pump direction; pump 14 can flow in either direction, par 0045);
the directional control valve switches a connection target of each of the head-end port and the rod-end port between the discharge port and the suction port (shuttle valve 52 controls the pump 14 connection to the low pressure conduit 54, par 0051; inherently shuttle valve 52 prevents the connection of the discharging port of pump 14 to the low pressure conduit 54 while shuttle valve 562 also connects the sucking port of pump 14 to the low pressure conduit 54);
the unloader valve connects, to a tank (fig 2, 66), a discharge passage (either 18 or 20 is the discharge of pump 14 dependent on direction of pump 14) connecting the discharge port and the directional control valve; and
when causing the directional control valve (52) to connect the head-end port to the suction port (the pump 14 suction is connected to the head-end port 24 via low pressure channel 54 and directional control valve 52), the control device actuates the unloader valve (46, par 0085).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights