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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 7 of Page 1. Replacing “the inner space” with “the inner space of the wheel” is suggested.
wording in Line 10 of Page 1. Replacing “a tubular bracket part” with “a bracket part that is tubular” is suggested for consistency throughout the claims, as recited. Alternatively, replacing each occurrence throughout the claims of “the bracket part” with “the tubular bracket part” is suggested.
wording in Line 11 of Page 1. Replacing “the chassis part side” with “a side of the chassis part” is suggested.
wording in Line 24 of Page 1. Replacing “the radial direction” with “the radial direction of the shaft” is suggested.
wording in Line 25 of Page 1. Replacing “the radial direction” with “the radial direction of the shaft” is suggested.
wording in Line 1 of Page 2. Replacing “on rotation angle” with “on a rotation angle” is suggested.
wording in Line 3 of Page 1. Replacing “a radially outermost end” with “a radially outermost surface” is suggested.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 20 of Page 4. Replacing “the radial direction, is formed” with “the radial direction of the shaft, is formed” is suggested.
wording in Line 23 of Page 4. Replacing “the radial direction and is adjacent” with “the radial direction of the shaft and is adjacent” is suggested.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 6 of Page 5. Replacing “a wiring for transmitting” with “a wiring that transmits” is suggested. Alternatively, replacing each occurrence of “the wiring” in Claims 9 and 10 with “the wiring for transmitting the signal outputted from the bracket-side sensor part” is suggested.
wording in Line 8 of Page 5. Replacing “an inside to an outside of the bracket part” with “an inside of the bracket part to an outside of the bracket part” is suggested.
wording in Line 9 of Page 5. Replacing “the radial direction, is formed” with “the radial direction of the shaft, is formed” is suggested.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
wording in Line 21 of Page 5. Replacing “a wiring for transmitting” with “a wiring that transmits” is suggested. Alternatively, replacing each occurrence of “the wiring” in Claims 12 and 13 with “the wiring for transmitting the signal outputted from the bracket-side sensor part” is suggested.
wording in Line 23 of Page 5. Replacing “an inside to an outside of the bracket part” with “an inside of the bracket part to an outside of the bracket part” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 are 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a dimension…is smaller than a radius of the bearing” (Page 2, Lines 3-4) but does not recite which radius of the bearing (e.g., inner radius of outer ring, outer radius of outer ring, inner radius of inner ring, outer radius of the inner ring) is smaller than the recited dimension. For the purposes of this examination, the limitation “a dimension…is smaller than a radius of the bearing” will be construed as “a dimension…is smaller than a radius of the outer surface of the outer-ring cylinder portion”.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yada (JP 2020128134 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Yada teaches an in-wheel motor applicable to a mobile object [Yada Paragraph 0002: “A vehicle power plant incorporating a motor inside a wheel is provided with a wheel bearing that supports the wheel and a motor that drives and regenerates the wheel”], the mobile object comprising a wheel having a rim part to which a tire can be mounted and a disc part provided on a side of the rim part, the in-wheel motor having at least part thereof received in an inner space of the wheel and being configured to rotate the wheel, the inner space being surrounded by the disc part and the rim part [Yada Fig. 1, Reference Characters 10 (wheel) and 12 (disc part)], the in-wheel motor comprising: a tubular bracket part fixed to a chassis part of the mobile object and extending outward in a vehicle width direction from the chassis part side [Yada Fig. 1, Reference Character 21 (tubular bracket); Paragraph 0041: The inner rotor case 15 is rotatably supported by the first divided structural body 21a]; a stator connected to the bracket part [Yada Fig. 1, Reference Character 19]; a rotor having a field pole and a shaft and connected to the wheel, the shaft extending in the vehicle width direction [Yada Fig. 3, Reference Characters 18 (rotor) and 7a (shaft); Yada Paragraph 0042: “On the inner peripheral surface of the inner rotor case 15, a rotor 18 composed of a plurality of circumferentially-oriented permanent magnets is provided. The rotor 18 is also arranged coaxially with the wheel bearing inner ring 7.”]; a bearing provided, in an axial direction of the shaft, on an outer side of the bracket part in the vehicle width direction to rotatably support the shaft [Yada Fig. 3, Reference Characters 5 and 7b]; and a rotation angle sensor, wherein the shaft extends axially inward in the vehicle width direction to a position facing an inner circumferential surface of the bracket part in a radial direction of the shaft [Yada Fig. 3, Reference Character 31 (rotation angle sensor), and 21 (bracket part); Yada Paragraph 0051: “The rotation detector 31 has a detected part 31a attached to the detected part holding member and the like, and a sensor part 31b for detecting the detected part 31a.”], the rotation angle sensor has: a rotor-side sensor part mounted to the shaft at the position facing the inner circumferential surface of the bracket part in the radial direction and extending outward in the radial direction [Yada Fig. 3, Reference Character 31a]; and a bracket-side sensor part mounted to the bracket part at a position facing the rotor-side sensor part and configured to output a signal that depends on rotation angle of the rotor-side sensor part [Yada Fig. 3, Reference Character 31b], and a dimension from a radially outermost end of the rotor-side sensor part to a center of rotation of the rotor-side sensor part is smaller than a radius of the bearing [Yada Fig. 3, wherein the radially outermost end of the rotor-side sensor part is the outermost surface of Reference Character 31a proximal to the bracket-side sensor part 31b, and wherein the radius of the bearing is defined by the distance between the unlabeled centerline and the outermost surface of Reference Character 5.].
Regarding Claim 2, Yada teaches he in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 1, wherein the rotor-side sensor part has an annular shape, and the bracket-side sensor part also has an annular shape, and is mounted to the inner circumferential surface of the bracket part at a position facing the rotor-side sensor part in the radial direction of the shaft [Yada Fig. 3, Reference Characters 31a and 31b in cross-section; Yada Paragraph 0051: “A sensor portion 31b is fixed to the inner peripheral surface of the stator fixing member 21 on the inboard side via a sensor fixing member 32.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Yada teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the in-wheel motor is an outer rotor type motor, the stator has: a base part connected to an outer end portion of the bracket part in the vehicle width direction; a stator core provided radially outside the base part; and a stator coil provided radially outside the stator core, and the bearing is mounted to the base part [Yada Fig. 1, Reference Characters 18 (rotor), 19 (stator), 21 (bracket part), 19a (stator core), 19b (stator coil), and 5 (bearing mounted to the base part)[.
Regarding Claim 4, Yada teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 3, wherein the bearing is a rolling bearing which has: an outer ring mounted to the base part; an inner ring to which the shaft is mounted; and rolling elements provided between the outer ring and the inner ring, the rotor has: a cylindrical magnet holder received in the inner space of the wheel; and a connection part provided at an outer end of the magnet holder in the vehicle width direction, received in the inner space of the wheel and connecting an outer end portion of the shaft in the vehicle width direction and the outer end of the magnet holder in the vehicle width direction, the field pole includes a magnet unit that is provided on an inner circumferential surface of the magnet holder to form a plurality of magnetic poles whose polarities are alternately different in a circumferential direction, and an outer diameter of the rotor-side sensor part is smaller than an outer diameter of the outer ring [Yada Fig. 3, Reference Characters 5 (rolling bearing outer ring), 21 (base part), 7 (rolling bearing inner ring), (unnumbered rolling elements between Reference Characters 5 and 7); Paragraph 0042: “On the inner peripheral surface of the inner rotor case 15, a rotor 18 composed of a plurality of circumferentially-oriented permanent magnets is provided.”].
Regarding Claim 5, Yada teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 3, wherein the bearing is a rolling bearing which has: an outer ring mounted to the base part; an inner ring; and rolling elements provided between the outer ring and the inner ring, the inner ring has: a rotation support portion arranged radially inside the outer ring and having a cylindrical outer surface; the shaft extending axially inward in the vehicle width direction from the rotation support portion; and a flange portion extending radially from an axially outer end portion of the rotation support portion in the vehicle width direction, the rotor has: a cylindrical magnet holder received in the inner space of the wheel; and a connection part provided at an outer end of the magnet holder in the vehicle width direction, received in the inner space of the wheel and connecting the flange portion and the outer end of the magnet holder in the vehicle width direction, the field pole includes a magnet unit that is provided on an inner circumferential surface of the magnet holder to form a plurality of magnetic poles whose polarities are alternately different in a circumferential direction, and an outer diameter of the rotor-side sensor part is smaller than an outer diameter of the outer ring [Yada Fig. 3, Reference Characters 5 (rolling bearing outer ring), 21 (base part), 7 (rolling bearing inner ring), (unnumbered rolling elements between Reference Characters 5 and 7), 7aa (flange portion); Yada Paragraph 0042: “On the inner peripheral surface of the inner rotor case 15, a rotor 18 composed of a plurality of circumferentially-oriented permanent magnets is provided.”].
Regarding Claim 6, Yada teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the rotation angle sensor is a resolver which includes: a resolver rotor as the rotor-side sensor part; and an excitation coil and a resolver stator, around which the excitation coil is wound, as the bracket-side sensor part [Yada Fig. 3, Reference Character 31; Yada Paragraph 0051: “The vehicle power unit 1 is provided with a rotation detector 31...The rotation detector 31 has a detected part 31a attached to the detected part holding member and the like, and a sensor part 31b for detecting the detected part 31a. A sensor portion 31b is fixed to the inner peripheral surface of the stator fixing member 21 on the inboard side via a sensor fixing member 32. A resolver, for example, is applied as the rotation detector 31.”].
Regarding Claim 8, Yada teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 2, wherein an inner end portion of the shaft in the vehicle width direction, which faces the inner circumferential surface of the bracket part in the radial direction, is formed as a small-diameter portion, a portion of the shaft, which also faces the inner circumferential surface of the bracket part in the radial direction and is adjacent to the small-diameter portion in the axial direction, is formed as a large-diameter portion that has a larger outer diameter than the small-diameter portion, and the rotor-side sensor part is mounted to the shaft, with an outer end portion of the rotor-side sensor part in the vehicle width direction abutting against a step portion of the shaft formed between the small-diameter portion and the large-diameter portion [Yada Fig. 3, Reference Character 31a].
Regarding Claim 11, Yada teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 2, wherein the bracket part has a cover that covers an opening of the bracket part on an inner side in the vehicle width direction, and the cover is fixed to the chassis part [Yada Fig. 1, wherein the cover is the unnumbered item that covers the inner side of bracket part 21.].
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada (JP 2020128134 A) in view of Kikuchi et al. (JP 4628460 B2) (hereinafter “Kikuchi”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, Yada teaches a bracket part but does not teach bracket part material. Kikuchi teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 6, wherein the bracket part is formed of a nonmagnetic material [Kikuchi Fig. 7, Reference Character 571 (bracket part); Kikuchi Paragraph 0050: “the ring-shaped member 57 composed of the nonmagnetic body portion 571 and the magnetic body portion 572 each having a cylindrical shape is provided on the outer peripheral side of the rotation sensor portion 5.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the in-wheel motor of Yada to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a nonmagnetic material in view of Kikuchi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yada and Kikuchi because this would have achieved the desirable result of removing or reducing noise, as recognized by Kikuchi [Kikuchi Paragraph 0050: “noise is removed or reduced.”].
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada (JP 2020128134 A) in view of Fujita et al. (JP 4628460 B2) (hereinafter “Fujita”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, Yada teaches a bracket-side sensor part but does not explicitly teach wiring. Fujita teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 2, wherein a wiring for transmitting the signal outputted from the bracket-side sensor part is led out from the bracket-side sensor part, and the wiring is further led out from an inside to an outside of the bracket part through a through-hole that penetrates the bracket part in the radial direction, or through a through-hole formed between the bracket part and the stator [Fujita Figs. 1 and 6, Reference Characters 27ba (wiring), 27b (bracket-side sensor part), and 64 (connector that passes through the unnumbered through-hole); Fujita Paragraph 0040: “The wiring 27ba of the sensor unit 27b is connected to the sensor connector 64.”; Fujita Paragraph 0053: “a rotation detector 27 is disposed in the space between the two bearing portions 2A, 2A aligned in the axial direction in the wheel bearing 2. The sensor portion 27b is installed in a through hole that penetrates the outer ring 4 and the stator holding member 24 in the radial direction...A wire (not shown) of the rotation detector 27 is wired from the sensor portion 27b to the sensor connector 64 (see FIG. 1) supported by the connector cover 66 (see FIG. 1) through the through hole of the stator holding member 24 and the like.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the in-wheel motor of Yada to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, wiring in view of Fujita. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yada and Fujita because this would have achieved the desirable results of reducing part quantity, simplifying the structure, and reducing manufacturing cost, as recognized by Fujita [Fujita Paragraph 0054: “the rotation detector 27 can be disposed utilizing the space between the two bearing portions 2A, 2A. Further, since the rotation detector 27 can be installed directly on the wheel bearing 2, it is possible to reduce the parts and the like that hold the rotation detector 27. Therefore, the structure can be simplified and the manufacturing cost can be reduced”]. It is acknowledged that Fujita’s through-hole departs the bracket part in the axial direction whereas the claimed invention’s through hole departs the bracket part in the radial direction. As the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the through-hole departure direction, featuring a radial through-hole as opposed to an axial through-hole is regarded as a rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, and is thus regarded as an obvious engineering design choice, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention. It should be noted that the rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). It should be noted that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions i.e., radial departure, axial departure, etc., with a reasonable expectation of success is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 10, Yada teaches a bracket-side sensor part but does not explicitly teach wiring, a through-hole, or a seal member. Fujita teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 9, further comprising a seal member that closes the through-hole except for the wiring [Fujita Fig. 1, wherein the seal member is represented by the unnumbered member between Reference Characters 66 and 64]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the in-wheel motor of Yada to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a seal member in view of Fujita. It should be noted that while Fujita doesn’t provide an explicit motivation for including a seal member, seal members in applications of this type are common in the art. Seal members, prevent intrusion of liquids and solid debris, provide thermal insulation between wiring and motor components, and provide vibration isolation of the wiring, as would have been recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yada (JP 2020128134 A) in view of Fujita et al. (JP 4628460 B2) (hereinafter “Fujita”). [Note that prior art citations are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 12, Yada teaches a bracket side sensor part but does not explicitly teach wiring. Fujita teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 11, wherein a wiring for transmitting the signal outputted from the bracket-side sensor part is led out from the bracket-side sensor part, and the wiring is further led out from an inside to an outside of the bracket part through a through-hole formed between the bracket part and the cover [Fujita Figs. 1 and 6, Reference Characters 27ba (wiring), 27b (bracket-side sensor part), and 64 (connector that passes through the unnumbered through-hole); Fujita Paragraph 0040: “The wiring 27ba of the sensor unit 27b is connected to the sensor connector 64.”; Fujita Paragraph 0053: “a rotation detector 27 is disposed in the space between the two bearing portions 2A, 2A aligned in the axial direction in the wheel bearing 2. The sensor portion 27b is installed in a through hole that penetrates the outer ring 4 and the stator holding member 24 in the radial direction...A wire (not shown) of the rotation detector 27 is wired from the sensor portion 27b to the sensor connector 64 (see FIG. 1) supported by the connector cover 66 (see FIG. 1) through the through hole of the stator holding member 24 and the like.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the in-wheel motor of Yada to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, wiring in view of Fujita. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Yada and Fujita because this would have achieved the desirable results of reducing part quantity, simplifying the structure, and reducing manufacturing cost, as recognized by Fujita [Fujita Paragraph 0054: “the rotation detector 27 can be disposed utilizing the space between the two bearing portions 2A, 2A. Further, since the rotation detector 27 can be installed directly on the wheel bearing 2, it is possible to reduce the parts and the like that hold the rotation detector 27. Therefore, the structure can be simplified and the manufacturing cost can be reduced”]. It is acknowledged that Fujita’s through-hole departs the bracket part in the axial direction whereas the claimed invention’s through hole departs the bracket part in the radial direction. As the applicant has not set forth a reason for the criticality of the through-hole departure direction, featuring a radial through-hole as opposed to an axial through-hole is regarded as a rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, and is thus regarded as an obvious engineering design choice, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention. It should be noted that the rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). It should be noted that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions i.e., radial departure, axial departure, etc., with a reasonable expectation of success is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Regarding Claim 13, Yada teaches a bracket-side sensor part but does not explicitly teach wiring, a through-hole, or a seal member. Fujita teaches the in-wheel motor as set forth in Claim 12, further comprising a seal member that closes the through-hole except for the wiring [Fujita Fig. 1, wherein the seal member is represented by the unnumbered member between Reference Characters 66 and 64]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the in-wheel motor of Yada to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a seal member in view of Fujita. It should be noted that while Fujita doesn’t provide an explicit motivation for including a seal member, seal members in applications of this type are common in the art. Seal members, prevent intrusion of liquids and solid debris, provide thermal insulation between wiring and motor components, and provide vibration isolation of the wiring, as would have been recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the claimed invention. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
