DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chao et al. (US 8,608,591), hereafter referred to as Chao.
Regarding claim 24, Chao discloses a golf club head (Figure 1, element 10) comprising:
a cast body (Figure 3, element 12) made of a titanium alloy (col. 3, line 38);
a face opening (See annotated figure below) and a crown opening (Figure 3, element 48) defined in the cast body, wherein the crown opening extends rearward of the hosel (Figure 2, note the crown panel 52, which is associated with the crown opening 48, extends reward of the face opening 14 and the hosel 16);
PNG
media_image1.png
710
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a crown insert (Figure 3, element 52) made of a non-metal material (“carbon fiber epoxy resin”, col. 6, lines 12-16) coupled to the crown opening (Figure 2 shows crown insert 52 coupled to crown opening 48);
wherein:
the golf club head comprises a golf club head center-of-gravity (“CG”, col. 3, line 53) comprising a golf club head center-of-gravity horizontal x-axis (“CG x-axis”, col. 3, line 61) and a golf club head center-of- gravity vertical z-axis (“CG z-axis”, col. 3, line 60);
the golf club head comprises a moment of inertia about the golf club head center-of-gravity vertical z-axis (Izz) (col. 3, line 57), and a moment of inertia about the golf club head center-of-gravity horizontal x-axis (Ixx) (col. 3, line 57); and a ratio of Ixx/Izz is at least 0.55 (Based disclosed ranges for Izz and Ixx, the resulting ratio of Ixx/Izz is between about 0.608 to 0.817; “Izz is between about 520 and 590 kg-mm2”, claim 13, and “Ixx is between about 359 and 425 kg-mm2”, claim 14).
Chao does not disclose a golf club head comprising a cast body having a mass from 0.10 kg to 0.18 kg. Furthermore, Yamamoto teaches a golf club head (Figure 1, element 4) comprising a cast (“casting”, paragraph [0183]) body (Figure 1, element 14) having a mass of 0.18 kg (“A weight of the head body was 180 g”, paragraph [0191], line 8). Yamamoto reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body having a mass of 0.18 kg to supply a body fashioned from a lightweight but strong metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao to provide a cast body having a mass of 0.18 kg, like in Yamamoto, to supply a body fashioned from a lightweight but strong metal.
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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (US 8,608,591), in view of Quan (US 8,852,024) and Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127).
Regarding claim 25, Chao discloses golf club head of claim 24, but does not disclose a cast body that has a volume of no more than 250 cm3 and a mass of no more than 0.18 kg.
Furthermore, Quan teaches a golf club head wherein the cast body has a volume of no more than 250 cm3 (“ the body volume of the fairway wood head may be no more than 250 cc”, col. 2, lines 53-54). Quan reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body with a volume of no more than 250 cm3 to ensure the golf club head conforms to the standards for a fairway wood head. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao to provide a cast body with a volume of no more than 250 cm3, like that of Quan, to ensure the golf club head conforms to the standards for a fairway wood head.
Additionally, Yamamoto teaches a golf club head (Figure 1, element 4) comprising a cast (“casting”, paragraph [0183]) body (Figure 1, element 14) having a mass of 0.18 kg (“A weight of the head body was 180 g”, paragraph [0191], line 8). Yamamoto reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body having a mass of 0.18 kg to supply a body fashioned from a lightweight but strong metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Quan to provide a cast body having a mass of 0.18 kg, like in Yamamoto, to supply a body fashioned from a lightweight but strong metal.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591), in view of Quan (US 8,852,024) and Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127) and as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Song (US 6,071,200).
Regarding claim 26, Chao in view of Quan and Yamamoto teaches the golf club head of claim 25, but does not explicitly teach a crown insert that occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head. Furthermore, Song teaches a golf club head wherein the crown insert occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head (Figure 1, element 12). Song reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a crown insert that occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head to supply a crown portion formed by press working of metal plates titanium alloy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Quan and Yamamoto to provide a crown insert that occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head, like that of Song, to supply a crown portion formed by press working of metal plates titanium alloy.
Regarding claim 27, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 26, and Yamamoto additionally teaches a golf club head further comprising an adjustable loft/lie assembly (Figure 11, elements 42 and 50; “the loft angle, the lie angle and the hook angle can be adjusted due to eight kinds of circumferential relative positions”, paragraph [0078]) configured to couple with the hosel (Figure 2, where element 8 connects hosel 37 to shaft 6), wherein the adjustable loft/lie assembly allows loft and lie angle adjustments (“the loft angle, the lie angle and the hook angle can be adjusted due to eight kinds of circumferential relative positions”, paragraph [0078]). Yamamoto reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide an adjustable loft/lie assembly configured to couple a shaft of a golf club with the hosel to select the loft angle and lie angle suitable for each player. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song to provide an adjustable loft/lie assembly configured to couple a shaft of a golf club with the hosel, like in Yamamoto, to select the loft angle and lie angle suitable for each player.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591), in view of Quan (US 8,852,024), Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127), and Song (US 6,071,200), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Kleinert et al. (US 9,868,036), hereafter referred to as Kleinert.
Regarding claim 28, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 27, but does not teach a golf club head further comprising a center of gravity (CG) projection that is at most 3 mm above or below a center of a strike face of the golf club head. Furthermore, Kleinert teaches a golf club head further comprising a center of gravity (CG) projection that is at most 3 mm above or below a center of a strike face of the golf club head (“projected CG (BP Proj.) on the ball striking face is lower than the geometric center”, col. 22, lines 37-39; Table 2 discloses BP Proj. values of 2.2 mm, 1mm , and 1.6mm below a geometric center). Kleinert reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a center of gravity (CG) projection that is at most 3 mm below a center of a strike face of the golf club head to assist in creating a desirable reduction in backspin when striking a golf ball. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song to provide a center of gravity (CG) projection that is at most 3 mm below a center of a strike face of the golf club head, like in Kleinert, to assist in creating a desirable reduction in backspin when striking a golf ball.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591), in view of Quan (US 8,852,024), Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127), and Song (US 6,071,200), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Allen (US 5,873,791).
Regarding claim 29, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, Song, and Kleinert teaches the golf club head of claim 27, but does not teach at least a portion of the cast body with a wall thickness between 0.6 mm and 0.8 mm. Furthermore, Allen teaches a golf club head wherein at least a portion of the cast body has a wall thickness between 0.6 mm and 0.8 mm (“wall thicknesses on the order of 0.020 to 0.070 inches on the perimeter walls”, col. 1, line 43-44; this thickness is equal to 0.508 to 1.778 mm). Allen reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide at least a portion of the cast body has a wall thickness between 0.6 mm and 0.8 mm because club heads made of metal alloys must have extremely thin wall thicknesses in order to conform to commonly acceptable club head weights. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, Song, and Kleinert with the teachings of Allen and to modify the wall thickness from 0.02-0.07 inches to 0.6-0.8 mm, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap to or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Claim(s) 30-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao (US 8,608,591), in view of Quan (US 8,852,024), Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127), and Song (US 6,071,200), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Tsai et al. (2009/0181794), hereafter referred to as Tsai.
Regarding claim 30, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 27, but does not teach a titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprising 0.25% to 1.75% Vanadium (V) by weight. Furthermore, Tsai teaches a golf club head wherein the titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprises at most 2% Vanadium (“≤ 2 wt% vanadium (V)”, paragraph [0009]). Tsai reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy having less than 2% Vanadium (V) by weight so as to form a golf club head from a high extensibility material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Quan, and Song with the teachings of Tsai and to modify the proportion of Vanadium from no more than 2% to 0.25-1.75%, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Regarding claim 31, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 27, but does not teach a titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprising 0.5% to 3.25% Mo by weight. Furthermore, Tsai teaches a golf club head wherein the titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprises at most 2% Molybdenum (“≤ 2 wt% Molybdenum (Mo)”, paragraph [0009]). Tsai reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy having no more than 2% Molybdenum by weight so as to form a golf club head from a high extensibility material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Quan, and Song with the teachings of Tsai and to modify the proportion of Molybdenum from less than 2% to 0.5-3.25%, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Regarding claim 32, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 27, but does not teach a titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprising no more than 3% Chromium (Cr) by weight. Furthermore, Tsai teaches a golf club head wherein the titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprises at most 2% Chromium (Cr) (“≤ 2 wt% Chromium (Cr)”, paragraph [0009]). Tsai reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy having less than 2% Chromium by weight so as to form a golf club head from a high extensibility material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Quan, and Song with the teachings of Tsai and to modify the proportion of Chromium from no more than 2% to no more than 3%, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Regarding claim 33, see the rejections of claims 30-32. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Quan, and Song with the teachings of Tsai and to modify the proportion of Vanadium from no more than 2% to 0.25-1.75%, the proportion of Molybdenum from less than 2% to 0.5-3.25%, the proportion of Chromium from no more than 2% to no more than 3%, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Regarding claim 34, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 27, and Chao additionally discloses a sole opening (“sole opening”, Figure 3, element 46) and a sole insert coupled to the sole opening (“sole panel”, Figure 3, element 50).
Regarding claim 35, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 34, and Chao additionally discloses a sole insert made of a composite material (“sole replaced with carbon fiber composite material panels”, col. 5, line 40 )
Regarding claim 36, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 27, and Chao additionally discloses a strike plate coupled to the face opening (Figure 4, element 14), wherein the strike plate is made of a composite material (“The strike plate 14 can be made of a composite material”, col.3, line 45-46).
Regarding claim 37, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 27, but does not teach a gold club head wherein the cast body has an elongation of at least 10.2%. Furthermore, Tsai teaches a golf club head wherein the cast body has an elongation of at least 10.2% (“elongation falling within a scope from 8% to 16%”, paragraph [0016]). Tsai reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body that has an elongation of at 8-16% to form a golf club head with a desirable damping capability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Quan, and Song with the teachings of Tsai and to modify the range of the elongation from 8 to 16% to at least 10.2%, since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see specification paragraph [0061] indicating multiple ranges).
Regarding claim 38, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 27, but does not explicitly teach a titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprising Vanadium and Molybdenum. Furthermore, Tsai teaches a golf club head wherein the titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprises comprising Vanadium and Molybdenum (“≤ 2 wt% vanadium (V)” and “≤ 2 wt% Molybdenum (Mo)”, paragraph [0009]). Tsai reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy comprising Vanadium and Molybdenum so as to form a golf club head from a high extensibility material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto, Quan, and Song with the teachings of Tsai and to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy comprising Vanadium and Molybdenum so as to form a golf club head from a high extensibility material.
Regarding claim 39, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 27, and Chao additionally discloses a strike plate coupled to the face opening (Figure 4, element 14), wherein the strike plate is made of a different material than the cast body (“The strike plate 14 can be made of a composite material”, col.3, line 45-46; note the composite material is different than the titanium alloy of the cast body).
Claim(s) 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (US 8,608,591), in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127) and Song (US 6,071,200).
Regarding claim 40, Chao discloses golf club head of claim 24, but does not disclose a golf club head further comprising an adjustable loft/lie assembly configured to couple with the hosel, wherein: the adjustable loft/lie assembly allows loft and lie angle adjustments; and the crown insert occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head.
Furthermore, Yamamoto teaches an adjustable loft/lie assembly (Figure 11, elements 42 and 50; “the loft angle, the lie angle and the hook angle can be adjusted due to eight kinds of circumferential relative positions”, paragraph [0078]) configured to couple with the hosel (Figure 2, where element 8 connects hosel 37 to shaft 6), wherein the adjustable loft/lie assembly allows loft and lie angle adjustments (the loft angle, the lie angle and the hook angle can be adjusted due to eight kinds of circumferential relative positions”, paragraph [0078]). Yamamoto reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide an adjustable loft/lie assembly configured to couple a shaft of a golf club with the hosel to select the loft angle and lie angle suitable for each player. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao to provide an adjustable loft/lie assembly configured to couple a shaft of a golf club with the hosel, like in Yamamoto, t to select the loft angle and lie angle suitable for each player.
Even further, Song teaches a golf club head wherein the crown insert occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head (Figure 1, element 12). Song reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a crown insert that occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head to supply a crown portion formed by press working of metal plates titanium alloy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto to provide a crown insert that occupies at least a majority of a crown portion of the golf club head, like that of Song, to supply a crown portion formed by press working of metal plates titanium alloy.
Regarding claim 41, Chao in view of Yamamoto and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 40, and Chao additionally discloses a strike plate coupled to the face opening (Figure 4, element 14), wherein the strike plate is made of a different material than the cast body (“The strike plate 14 can be made of a composite material”, col.3, line 45-46; note the composite material is different than the titanium alloy of the cast body).
Regarding claim 42, Chao in view of Quan, Yamamoto, and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 41, and Chao additionally discloses a sole opening (“sole opening”, Figure 3, element 46) and a sole insert coupled to the sole opening (“sole panel”, Figure 3, element 50).
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chao et al. (US 8,608,591) in view of Yamamoto (US 2011/0098127) and Song (US 6,071,200), as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Tsai (2009/0181794).
Regarding claim 43, Chao in view of Yamamoto and Song teaches the golf club head of claim 41, but does not explicitly teach a titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprising Vanadium and Molybdenum. Furthermore, Tsai teaches a golf club head wherein the titanium alloy used to make the cast body comprises comprising Vanadium and Molybdenum (“≤ 2 wt% vanadium (V)” and “≤ 2 wt% Molybdenum (Mo)”, paragraph [0009]). Tsai reveals that it is known in the art of golf club heads to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy comprising Vanadium and Molybdenum so as to form a golf club head from a high extensibility material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the golf club head of Chao in view of Yamamoto and Song with the teachings of Tsai and to provide a cast body made of a titanium alloy comprising Vanadium and Molybdenum so as to form a golf club head from a high extensibility material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights