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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on January 7, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 7, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 9, 13 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 “low” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” in the context of “low speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Low speed has no defined or clear threshold in a broad context or even in this specific application.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “at least two … entire lengths”, and the claim also recites “or three entire lengths” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12-13, 15-18, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann Madsen et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170218916) hereinafter Lehmann Madsen in view of Hancock et al. (WO2022074129) hereinafter Hancock.
The embodiment of Figure 19 of Lehmann Madsen is used in the rejections below. Figure 15 is referenced as no analogous figure is presented for the embodiment of Figure 19.
Regarding claim 1, Lehmann Madsen discloses:
A method for attaching a panel to a surface of a wind turbine blade {Figures 15/19 (670)/(970)},
wherein the panel comprises a first attachment surface for attaching to the surface of the wind turbine blade and a second surface which faces away from the surface of the wind turbine blade {Figures 15/19, the surface of the panel (670)/970) which faces the main blade structure is the first attachment surface. The outer exposed surface (670)/(970) is the second surface and faces away from the wind turbine blade},
when the panel is attached to the surface of the wind turbine blade {Figures 15/19; (670)/(970) is attached to the wind turbine blade (610); [0196]},
wherein the blade having a profiled contour including a pressure side and a suction side, and a leading edge and a trailing edge with a chord having a chord length extending there between in a chordwise direction {Figure 15 (610) is a wind turbine blade with above features; [0022]},
the wind turbine blade extending in a spanwise direction between a root end and a tip end {Figure 15, the spanwise direction is left/right with the root on the left and the tip on the right},
wherein the method comprises:
placing the first attachment surface of the panel on a part of the pressure side or the suction side of the wind turbine blade with adhesive between the first attachment surface on the panel and the part of the pressure side or the suction side of the wind turbine blade {Figure 19, the first attachment surface is placed on the pressure or suction side of the wind turbine blade with adhesive (980a-d) placed between the first attachment surface of the panel and the pressure or suction side of the wind turbine blade; [0201]}
Lehmann Madsen is silent regarding details of how pressure is applied in the joining of (670)/(970) to (610) {[0100]}.
Lehmann Madsen is therefore silent regarding:
the method uses a pressure application tool comprising at least two rollers,
arranging the pressure application tool such that a first roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact the second surface of the panel, and
a second roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact a part on the other side of the pressure side or suction side of the wind turbine blade;
applying pressure using the pressure application tool to the second surface of the panel and to the part on the other side of the pressure side or suction side of the wind turbine blade; and
moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along a part of the panel in order to attach the panel to the surface of the wind turbine blade.
Hancock pertains to wind turbine blade manufacturing. Hancock teaches:
the method uses a pressure application tool comprising at least two rollers {Figure 6a (50) is in between two instances of rollers (72); page 10 lines 19-28 also describe rollers (72) that are on each the opposing side of two sheets},
arranging the pressure application tool such that a first roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact the outward surface of the panel {Figure 6a, a first instance of roller (72) may contact an outward facing surface of the panel (44); page 10 lines 19-28 also describe rollers (72) that are on each the opposing side of two sheets}, and
a second roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact a part on the other side {Figure 6a, a second instance of roller (72) may contact the other outward facing surface of the panel (46); page 10 lines 19-28 also describe rollers (72) that are on each the opposing side of two sheets};
applying pressure using the pressure application tool to the outer surface of the panel and to the part on the other side {Figure 6a, rollers (72) apply pressure; page 10 line 29 – page 11 line 3}; and
moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along a part of the panel in order to form the panel {Figure 6a, the panel moves along (D1)/(D2) which causes relative motion between the rollers (72) and panel (50). The examiner therefore finds that the rollers are moved along the part via movement of the panel. This movement and pressure attaches the components (44)/(46)/(48) that form (50); page 10 line 29 – page 11 line 9}.
Since Lehmann Madsen is silent regarding how pressure is applied to join the part to the wind turbine blade, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a forming station (with rollers) as taught by Hancock to apply pressure to join the panel to the wind turbine blade of Lehmann Madsen. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the forming station (80) of Hancock can apply pressure to wind turbine blade parts to join them together in a precise computer controlled manner and rollers are able to move freely across the wind turbine blade {Hancock page 10 line 19 – page 11 line 3; Lehmann Madsen [0100]}}.
The combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock therefore teaches:
arranging the pressure application tool such that a first roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact the second surface of the panel {Hancock Figure 6a, a first instance of roller (72) may contact an outward facing surface of the panel (44) which corresponds to the second surface of (670)/(970) of Lehmann Madsen}, and
a second roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact a part on the other side of the pressure side or suction side of the wind turbine blade {Hancock Figure 6a, a second instance of roller (72) may contact the other outward facing surface of the panel (46) which corresponds to the opposite surface of the pressure side or suction side that the panel is attached to};
applying pressure using the pressure application tool to the second surface of the panel and to the part on the other side of the pressure side or suction side of the wind turbine blade {Hancock Figure 6a, rollers (72) apply pressure to the outer surfaces which correspond to the second surface of (670)/(970) and the opposite side of the pressure or suction side that the panel is attached to of Lehmann Madsen}; and
moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along a part of the panel in order to attach the panel to the surface of the wind turbine blade {Hancock Figure 6a, the panel moves along (D1)/(D2) which causes relative motion between the rollers (72) and panel (50). This attaches the panel (670)/(970) to the surface of the wind turbine blade; Lehmann Madsen [0100]/[0201]}.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the method comprises applying uniform pressure by the pressure application tool while moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along the part of the panel {Hancock page 12 lines 20-21. If the pressure may be controlled to vary it can also be made constant. Keeping the pressure uniform is therefore implicitly disclosed, see MPEP 2144.01}.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
wherein moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along the part of the panel are performed in a longitudinal direction of the blade {Lehmann Madsen, the main direction of the adhesive tape (980) in Figures 15/19 is along the trailing edge, which is substantially along the longitudinal direction of the blade. Therefore, the rollers of Hancock move along this direction}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the step of placing the first attachment surface of the panel on the part of the pressure side or the suction side of the wind turbine blade comprises placing the first attachment surface of the panel on a part of the trailing edge of the blade {Lehmann Madsen Figures 15/19 (670)/(970) is placed on the trailing edge of the blade; [0196]}.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the step of moving the at least two rollers along the part of the panel comprises moving the at least two rollers along at least one entire length of the panel {Lehmann Madsen Figure 19 (980) extends along the entire longitudinal length and would therefore be pressed by the rollers of Hancock for this entire length}.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the step of moving the at least two rollers along the part of the blade comprises moving the at least two rollers along at least two or three entire lengths of the panel {Lehmann Madsen Figure 19 (980a) and (980d) each extend along the entire longitudinal length and would therefore be pressed by the rollers of Hancock for each of these entire lengths. This may be done simultaneously or separately. The claim is ambiguous if it requires one or the other}.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the adhesive is provided in form of a double-sided tape {Lehmann Madsen [0201]}.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the adhesive comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive, preferably provided on both sides of a double-sided tape {Lehmann Madsen [0181]}.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the method is a method of applying a serration panel on the trailing edge of the blade {Lehmann Madsen Figure 15 (670)/(970) is a serration panel on the trailing edge; [0196]}.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
wherein the at least two rollers have a width corresponding to a bonding surface {Corresponding has no precise relationship in this context and does not necessarily mean equivalent. The rollers of Hancock are applied to the bonding surface where tape (980) is applied in Figure 19. The examiner therefore finds that the roller width corresponds to this bonding surface},
the bonding surface is a surface where the panel contacts the surface of the blade {Lehmann Madsen Figure 19 (980) is applied to the surface of (970) which contacts the blade; [0201]}.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
herein the method further comprises measuring the pressure applied using the pressure application tool {Hancock page 12 lines 20-21; if the pressure applied is controlled it is implicitly measured. See MPEP 2144.01}.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock further teaches:
A wind turbine blade with a panel attached on a surface of the blade by the method according to claim 1 {Lehmann Madsen Figure s15/19 (670)/(970) is applied on a surface of the blade (610) by the method of claim 1.}.
Regarding claim 25, Lehmann Madsen discloses:
A method for attaching a serration panel to a surface of a trailing edge of a wind turbine blade {Figures 15/19 (670)/(970) is a serration panel attached to a trailing edge of a wind turbine blade (610); [0196]},
wherein the panel comprises a first attachment surface for attaching to the surface of the trailing edge of the wind turbine blade and a second surface which faces away from the surface of the trailing edge of the wind turbine blade {Figures 15/19, the surface of the panel (670)/970) which faces the main blade structure is the first attachment surface. The outer exposed surface (670)/(970) is the second surface and faces away from the wind turbine blade. These surfaces are both at the trailing edge},
when the panel is attached to the surface of the trailing edge of the wind turbine blade {Figures 15/19; (670)/(970) is attached to the wind turbine blade (610); [0196]},
wherein the blade having a profiled contour including a pressure side and a suction side, and a leading edge and the trailing edge with a chord having a chord length extending there between in a chordwise direction {Figure 15 (610) is a wind turbine blade with above features; [0022]},
the wind turbine blade extending in a spanwise direction between a root end and a tip end {Figure 15, the spanwise direction is left/right with the root on the left and the tip on the right},
wherein the method comprises:
placing the first attachment surface of the panel on a part of trailing edge of the blade with adhesive between the first attachment surface on the panel and the part of the trailing edge of the blade {Figure 19, the first attachment surface is placed on the trailing edge of the wind turbine blade with adhesive (980a-d) placed between the first attachment surface of the panel and the trailing edge of the blade; [0201]}
Lehmann Madsen is silent regarding details of how pressure is applied in the joining of (670)/(970) to (610) {[0100]}.
Lehmann Madsen is therefore silent regarding:
the method uses a pressure application tool comprising at least two rollers,
arranging the pressure application tool such that a first roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact the second surface of the panel, and
a second roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact a part on the other side of the trailing edge of the wind turbine blade;
applying pressure using the pressure application tool to the second surface of the panel and to the part on the other side of the trailing edge of the wind turbine blade; and
moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along a part of the panel in order to attach the panel to the surface of the wind turbine blade.
Hancock pertains to wind turbine blade manufacturing. Hancock teaches:
the method uses a pressure application tool comprising at least two rollers {Figure 6a (50) is in between two instances of rollers (72); page 10 lines 19-28 also describe rollers (72) that are on each the opposing side of two sheets},
arranging the pressure application tool such that a first roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact the outward surface of the panel {Figure 6a, a first instance of roller (72) may contact an outward facing surface of the panel (44); page 10 lines 19-28 also describe rollers (72) that are on each the opposing side of two sheets}, and
a second roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact a part on the other side {Figure 6a, a second instance of roller (72) may contact the other outward facing surface of the panel (46); page 10 lines 19-28 also describe rollers (72) that are on each the opposing side of two sheets};
applying pressure using the pressure application tool to the outer surface of the panel and to the part on the other side {Figure 6a, rollers (72) apply pressure; page 10 line 29 – page 11 line 3}; and
moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along a part of the panel in order to form the panel {Figure 6a, the panel moves along (D1)/(D2) which causes relative motion between the rollers (72) and panel (50). The examiner therefore finds that the rollers are moved along the part via movement of the panel. This movement and pressure attaches the components (44)/(46)/(48) that form (50); page 10 line 29 – page 11 line 9}.
Since Lehmann Madsen is silent regarding how pressure is applied to join the part to the wind turbine blade, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a forming station (with rollers) as taught by Hancock to apply pressure to join the panel to the wind turbine blade of Lehmann Madsen. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the forming station (80) of Hancock can apply pressure to wind turbine blade parts to join them together in a precise computer controlled manner and rollers are able to move freely across the wind turbine blade {Hancock page 10 line 19 – page 11 line 3; Lehmann Madsen [0100]}}.
The combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock therefore teaches:
arranging the pressure application tool such that a first roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact the second surface of the panel {Hancock Figure 6a, a first instance of roller (72) may contact an outward facing surface of the panel (44) which corresponds to the second surface of (670)/(970) of Lehmann Madsen}, and
a second roller of the at least two rollers is arranged to contact a part on the other side of the trailing edge of the wind turbine blade {Hancock Figure 6a, a second instance of roller (72) may contact the other outward facing surface of the panel (46) which corresponds to the opposite surface of the trailing edge that the panel is attached to};
applying pressure using the pressure application tool to the second surface of the panel and to the part on the other side of the trailing edge of the wind turbine blade {Hancock Figure 6a, rollers (72) apply pressure to the outer surfaces which correspond to the second surface of (670)/(970) and the opposite side of the trailing edge that the panel is attached to of Lehmann Madsen}; and
moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along a part of the panel in order to attach the panel to the surface of the trailing edge of the wind turbine blade {Hancock Figure 6a, the panel moves along (D1)/(D2) which causes relative motion between the rollers (72) and panel (50). This attaches the panel (670)/(970) to the trailing edge surface of the wind turbine blade; Lehmann Madsen [0100]/[0201]}.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann Madsen in view of Hancock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jensen et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20230048890) hereinafter Jensen.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent regarding the engagement and disengagement of the rollers from the part. The combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock is therefore silent regarding:
wherein the method further comprises, prior to moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along the part of the panel, moving the at least two rollers towards each other to clamp the panel and a corresponding portion of the surface of the blade between the first and second rollers of the at least two rollers.
Jensen pertains to wind turbine blade manufacturing/repairs. Jensen teaches:
Selectively engaging the wind turbine blade by moving the compression tools towards each other to claim the blade between and selective disengagement {Figure 14, (28) instances clamp the blade by moving towards each other; [0090]}.
Since Hancock is silent regarding the engagement and disengagement of the rollers, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selective engagement applied before the rollers of Hancock move along the surface (rather than rolling initiating engagement) as well as selective disengagement. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as it allows for full control over when and where the rollers apply force to the blade {Jensen [0090]}.
The combination of Lehmann Madsen, Hancock, and Jensen therefore teaches:
wherein the method further comprises, prior to moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along the part of the panel, moving the at least two rollers towards each other to clamp the panel and a corresponding portion of the surface of the blade between the first and second rollers of the at least two rollers {Jensen [0090], the compression tools are the rollers of Hancock which move towards each other to clamp the blade of Lehmann Madsen based on the teachings of Jensen to apply the compression force and are then subsequently moved along the panel}.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lehmann Madsen, Hancock, and Jensen further teaches:
wherein the movement of the at least two rollers towards each other is carried out at a continuous low speed movement {Jensen [0090]; the movement is implicitly continuous, see MPEP 2144.01. The speed may be considered “low”; see 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above}.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lehmann Madsen, Hancock, and Jensen further teaches:
wherein the method further comprises, after finishing the step of moving the at least two rollers of the pressure application tool along the part of the panel, moving the at least two rollers in a direction away from each other to release a portion of the surface of the blade with the panel attached to this portion {Jensen [0090], the compression tools are the rollers of Hancock which move away from each other to release the blade of Lehmann Madsen based on the teachings of Jensen to release the compression force once the desired operation under clamping force is complete}.
Claims 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann Madsen in view of Hancock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Albert et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20190291372) hereinafter Albert.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent regarding changing the direction of the movement of the rollers, The combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock is therefore silent regarding:
wherein the step of moving the at least two rollers along the part of the panel comprises changing a direction of movement of the at least two rollers at least once.
Albert pertains to wind turbine blade manufacturing and rollers applying force to a wind turbine blade. Albert teaches:
wherein the step of moving the at least two rollers along the part of the panel comprises changing a direction of movement of the at least two rollers at least once {[0046-0047]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the movement of the rollers change direction at least once as taught by Albert for the method of the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as apply pressure over the entire adhesive interface (980) of Lehmann Madsen and conform to the shape of the blade while applying the desired pressure {Albert [0046]-[0047] and Lehmann Madsen page 10 line 29 – page 11 line 3}.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lehmann Madsen, Hancock, and Albert further teaches:
wherein changing the direction of movement of the at least two rollers is performed without interruption of continuous movement of the at least two rollers {Albert [0046]-[0047]}.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann Madsen in view of Hancock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harbaugh et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20120312471) hereinafter Harbaugh.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent regarding the source of power for how the actuators move and apply pressure. The combination of Lehmann Madsen and Hancock is therefore silent regarding:
wherein the step of applying the pressure using the pressure application tool comprises applying a spring force, or a pneumatically driven force, or hydraulically driven force.
Harbaugh pertains to roller devices and methods of using these devices. Harbaugh is also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of applying force using a roller to an object. Harbaugh teaches:
applying the pressure using the pressure application tool comprises applying a spring force, or a pneumatically driven force, or hydraulically driven force {Figure 1 (56) applies pressure via (70) which is actuated by hydraulic or pneumatic forces; [0040]}
Since Hancock is silent regarding the source of how the force is applied to apply pressure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used pneumatic or hydraulic actuators as taught by Harbaugh. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as electric motors, pneumatic actuators, and hydraulic actuators are known substitutes {Harbaugh [0040]}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jacobsen et al. (U.S Patent 9,458,821) teaches an attachment at the trailing edge of a wind turbine rotor blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY D HEINLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00am-5:00pm).
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights