Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-18, 37 and 41 are pending.
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 1-18, 37 and 41 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, at line 7 “b) a tracking system that measures a robot position and/or orientation” (emphasis added). Claim 1 goes on to require, at lines 20 and 28, that the tracking system measure both position and orientation. The claims are indefinite as it is not clear if only one of position or orientation is being claimed, or if both position and orientation are being claimed. The phrase “position and/or orientation” is present throughout the claims and should be reviewed to clearly claim applicant’s invention.
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, 15, 37, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac et al. (WO 2009/026641).
Pivac teaches:
Re claim 1. A system for performing interactions within a physical environment, the system including:
a) a robot (robotic arm 204, Figure 2) having:
i) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (page 10, lines 16-20: the coarse positioning system (illustrated as coarse positioning robotic arm comprising a telescopic boom 206, Figure 2) may include a mobile unit, such as a tracked or wheeled vehicle);
ii) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon for performing interactions (fine positioning robotic arm 210 and robotic gripper 214, Figure 2);
b) a tracking system that measures a robot position and/or orientation indicative of a position and/or orientation of a component of the robot relative to the environment (laser tracker 101, Figure 2), wherein:
i) the tracking system measures the position and/or orientation with a frequency that is at least one of: (1) at least 10Hz; (2) at least 20Hz; (3) at least 30Hz; (4) at least 100Hz; (5) at least 300Hz; (6) at least 1kHz; (7) at least 2kHz; and, (8) at least 10kHz (page 6, lines 10-21);
ii) the tracking system measures the position with an accuracy that is at least one of: (1) better than 10mm; (2) better than 2mm; (3) better than 1mm; (4) better than 0.2mm; (5) better than 0.02mm; -2- 130919-8013.US00/150336784.1Application No. 16/639,493Docket No.: 130919-8013.US00 Preliminary Amendment under 37 CFR 1.115 (6) better than 0.01mm; and, (7) better than 5μm (page 17, lines 21-25); and,
iii) the tracking system measures the orientation with an accuracy that is at least one of: (1) better than 1 degree; (2) better than 0.1 degree; (3) better than 0.01 degree; (4) better than 0.002 degree; (5) better than 0.001 degree; and, (6) better than 0.0001 degree (Pivac teaches measuring the orientation at page 10, lines 22-25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure the orientation with an accuracy within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally, one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.); and,
c) a control system that:
i) determines the robot position and/or orientation (page 19, lines 20-32); and,
ii) controls the robot arm in accordance with the robot position and/or orientation, wherein the control system operates with a frequency that is at least one of: (1) at least 10Hz; (2) at least 20Hz; (3) at least 30Hz; (4) at least 100Hz; (5) at least 300Hz; (6) at least 1kHz; (7) at least 2kHz; and, (8) at least 10kHz (Pivac teaches controlling the robot arm at page 19, lines 20-32. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the robot arm with a frequency within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Re claim 3. A system according to claim 1 or claim 2, wherein the control system and tracking system communicate via a communications network having a latency that is at least one of: a) less than 100ms; b) less than 10ms; -3- 130919-8013.US00/150336784.1Application No. 16/639,493Docket No.: 130919-8013.US00 Preliminary Amendment under 37 CFR 1.115 c) less than 5ms; d) less than 2ms; and, e) less than 1ms (Pivac teaches communicating over data cables or a wireless link at page 19, lines 10-14. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to communicate with a latency within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Re claim 4. Wherein a latency between measuring the position and/or orientation and controlling at least the robot arm in response to the measurements is at least one of: a) less than 100ms; b) less than 20ms; c) less than 15ms; d) less than 10ms; e) less than 5ms; and, f) less than 1ms (Pivac teaches the system has latency at page 16, line 31 through page 17, line 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a control system latency within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Re claim 5. Wherein the tracking system measures the position and/or orientation throughout a working envelope having a radius of: a) at least 2m; b) at least 5m; c) at least 10m; d) at least 20m; e) at least 30m; f) at least 40m; and g) at least 80m (page 4, lines 17-25 teach the system can move over a 26 meter range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a tracking system which can track the robot over its whole working range so that the robot may be tracked by a single system.).
Re claim 6. Wherein the robot arm is capable of positioning the end effector with an accuracy that is at least one of: a) better than 2mm; b) better than 1mm; c) better than 0.2mm; d) better than 0.02mm; -4- 130919-8013.US00/150336784.1Application No. 16/639,493Docket No.: 130919-8013.US00 Preliminary Amendment under 37 CFR 1.115 e) better than 0.01mm; and, f) better than 5μm (fine positioning robotic arm, page 3, line 13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a positional accuracy within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Re claim 7. Wherein the robot arm is capable of moving the end effector at a velocity that is at least one of: a) greater than 0.01ms-1; b) greater than 0.1ms-1; c) greater than 0.5ms-1; d) greater than 1ms-1; e) greater than 2ms-1; f) greater than 5ms-1; and, g) greater than 10ms-1 (page 17, line 9).
Re claim 8. Wherein the robot arm is capable of accelerating the end effector at an acceleration that is at least one of: a) greater than 1ms-2; b) greater than 10ms-2; and; c) greater than 20 ms-2 (page 17, line 1).
Re claim 9. Wherein the robot base is a movable robot base, and the system includes a robot base actuator that moves the robot base relative to the environment (page 10, lines 16-20: the coarse positioning system (illustrated as coarse positioning robotic arm comprising a telescopic boom 206, Figure 2) may include a mobile unit, such as a tracked or wheeled vehicle).
Re claim 10. Wherein the robot base actuator is capable of positioning the robot base with an accuracy that is at least one of: a) better than 1000 mm; b) better than 500 mm; c) better than 200 mm; d) better than 100mm, e) better than 10 mm; and, f) better than 1mm (coarse positioning robotic arm, page 2, line 17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a positional accuracy within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Re claim 11. Wherein the robot base actuator is capable of moving the robot base at a velocity that is at least one of: a) greater than 0.001ms-1; b) greater than 0.01ms-1; c) greater than 0.1ms-1 and, d) greater than 1ms-1 (page 17, line 9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to move the coarse positioning robotic arm with a velocity within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Re claim 12. Wherein the robot base actuator is capable of moving the robot base at an acceleration that is at least one of: a) greater than 0.1ms-2; b) greater than 1ms-2 and, c) greater than 10ms2 (page 17, line 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to move the coarse positioning robotic arm with an acceleration within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Re claim 15. wherein the system implements stabilisation control to provide the end effector at a destination in the environment while the robot base undergoes movement relative to the environment, and wherein the stabilisation control can compensate for movement of the robot base relative to the environment that is at least one of: -6- 130919-8013.US00/150336784.1Application No. 16/639,493Docket No.: 130919-8013.US00 Preliminary Amendment under 37 CFR 1.115 a) at least 1mm; b) at least 10mm; c) at least 20mm; d) at least 50mm; e) at least 100mm; f) at least 500mm; g) at least 1000mm; and, h) at least 5000mm (page 4, lines 17 through page 5, line 13. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to compensate for movement within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Re claim 37. A method for performing interactions within a physical environment using a system including:
a) a robot (robotic arm 204, Figure 2) having: -7- 130919-8013.US00/150336784.1Application No. 16/639,493Docket No.: 130919-8013.US00 Preliminary Amendment under 37 CFR 1.115
i) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (page 10, lines 16-20: the coarse positioning system (illustrated as coarse positioning robotic arm comprising a telescopic boom 206, Figure 2) may include a mobile unit, such as a tracked or wheeled vehicle); and,
ii) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon for performing interactions (fine positioning robotic arm 210 and robotic gripper 214, Figure 2); and,
b) a tracking system that measures a robot position and/or orientation indicative of a position and/or orientation of a component of the robot relative to the environment (laser tracker 101, Figure 2) and
wherein the method includes:
i) using the tracking system to measure the position and/or orientation (page 6, lines 10-21) with:
(1) a frequency that is at least one of: (a) at least 10Hz; (b) at least 20Hz; (c) at least 30Hz; (d) at least 100Hz; (e) at least 300Hz; (f) at least 1kHz; (g) at least 2kHz; and, (h) at least 10kHz (page 6, lines 10-21);
(2) a positional accuracy that is at least one of: (a) better than 10mm (b) better than 2mm; (c) better than 1mm; (d) better than 0.2mm; (e) better than 0.02mm; and, (f) better than 5μm (page 17, lines 21-25); and,
(3) an orientation accuracy that is at least one of: (a) better than 1 degree; (b) better than 0.1 degree; (c) better than 0.01 degree; (d) better than 0.001 degree; and, -8- 130919-8013.US00/150336784.1Application No. 16/639,493Docket No.: 130919-8013.US00 Preliminary Amendment under 37 CFR 1.115 (e) better than 0.0001 degree (Pivac teaches measuring the orientation at page 10, lines 22-25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure the orientation with an accuracy within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.); and,
ii) using a control system to:
(1) determine the robot position and/or orientation (page 19, lines 20-32); and,
(2) control the robot arm in accordance with the robot position and/or orientation, wherein the control system operates with a frequency that is at least one of: (a) at least 10Hz; (b) at least 20Hz; (c) at least 30Hz; (d) at least 100Hz; (e) at least 300Hz; (f) at least 1kHz; (g) at least 2kHz; and, (h) at least 10kHz (Pivac teaches controlling the robot arm at page 19, lines 20-32. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the robot arm with a frequency within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Re claim 41. A system for performing interactions within a physical environment,
the system including:
a) a robot (robotic arm 204, Figure 2) having:
i) a robot base that undergoes movement relative to the environment (page 10, lines 16-20: the coarse positioning system (illustrated as coarse positioning robotic arm comprising a telescopic boom 206, Figure 2) may include a mobile unit, such as a tracked or wheeled vehicle); and,
ii) a robot arm mounted to the robot base, the robot arm including an end effector mounted thereon for performing interactions (fine positioning robotic arm 210 and robotic gripper 214, Figure 2);
b) a tracking system that measures a robot position and/or orientation indicative of a position and/or orientation of a component of the robot relative to the environment (laser tracker 101, Figure 2), wherein:
i) the tracking system measures the position and/or orientation with a frequency that is at least one of: (1) at least 100Hz; and, (2) at least 1kHz (page 6, lines 10-21);
ii) the tracking system measures the position with an accuracy that is at least one of:-9-130919-8013.US00/150336784.1Application No. 16/639,493Docket No.: 130919-8013.US00 Preliminary Amendment under 37 CFR 1.115(1) better than 0.2mm; and, (2) better than 0.01mm (page 17, lines 21-25); and,
iii) the tracking system measures the orientation with an accuracy that is at least one of: (1) better than 0.01 degrees; and, (2) better than 0.001 degrees (Pivac teaches measuring the orientation at page 10, lines 22-25. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure the orientation with an accuracy within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.); and,
c) a control system that:
i) determines the robot position and/or orientation (page 19, lines 20-32); and,
ii) controls the robot arm in accordance with the robot position and/or orientation, wherein the control system operates with a frequency that is at least one of: (1) at least 100Hz; and, (2) at least 1kHz (Pivac teaches controlling the robot arm at page 19, lines 20-32. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the robot arm with a frequency within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.); and,
wherein a latency between measuring the robot position and/or orientation and controlling the robot arm in response to the measurements is at least one of: (1) less than 30ms; and, (2) less than 1ms (page 17, lines 6-8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control the robot arm with a latency within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac et al. (WO 2009/026641) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roessler (US Publication No. 2017/0333137).
The teachings of Pivac have been discussed above. Pivac fails to specifically teach: (re claim 2) wherein the control system and tracking system operate at the same frequency.
Roessler teaches, at paragraph [0073], updating the pose of virtual representations of objects in a mobile manipulator’s workspace at the same rate as the poses of trackers for the robot and workpiece are updated by a localizer, and at the same rate as each new commanded position of the manipulator.
In view of Roessler’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Pivac, (re claim 2) wherein the control system and tracking system operate at the same frequency; since Roessler teaches updating the pose of virtual representations of objects in a mobile manipulator’s workspace at the same rate as the poses of trackers for the robot and workpiece are updated by a localizer, and at the same rate as each new commanded position of the manipulator. This will produce the predictable result of controlling the manipulator as quickly as new sensor information is provided to the manipulator, thus reducing control delays and latency.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac et al. (WO 2009/026641) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heuschen et al. (DE 102009042014).
The teachings of Pivac have been discussed above. Pivac fails to specifically teach: (re claim 13) wherein the system includes an active damping system that actively damps movement of the robot base relative to the environment.
Heuschen teaches, at Figure 5 and paragraphs [0016-0017], actively damping oscillations and vibrations of a robot which are introduced via a base of the robot. This reduction in vibrations and oscillations allows for faster processing times.
In view of Heuschen’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Pivac, (re claim 13) wherein the system includes an active damping system that actively damps movement of the robot base relative to the environment; since Heuschen teaches actively damping oscillations and vibrations of a robot which are introduced via a base of the robot. This reduction in vibrations and oscillations allows for faster processing times.
Re claim 14. Wherein a latency between measuring the position and/or orientation and activating the active damping system is at least one of: a) less than 100ms; b) less than 20ms; c) less than 15ms; d) less than 10ms; e) less than 5ms; and, f) less than 1ms (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to reduce the latency of the active damping system to be within the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The claimed ranges are disclosed as producing a result which is different in degree from other ranges, but not different in kind from the prior art. Additionally one may be motivated to modify the working range to achieve a desired balance between precision/performance and cost.).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pivac et al. (WO 2009/026641) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pivac et al. (US Publication No. 2009/0038258; hereinafter Pivac ‘258) and Liu (“EtherCAT Based Robot Modular Joint Controller”).
The teachings of Pivac have been discussed above. Pivac fails to specifically teach: (re claim 16) wherein the system includes a communications system including a fieldbus network and wherein the control system communicates with the tracking system via the fieldbus network to determine the robot position; (re claim 17) wherein the fieldbus network is further coupled to: a) robot arm actuators; b) a robot base actuator; c) one or more end effector actuators; and, d) one or more sensors; and (re claim 18) wherein the tracking system includes: a) a tracking base connected to the fieldbus network.
Pivac ‘258 teaches, at paragraphs [0050 and 0053], a communication bus 66 may connect the tracking system, controller, base, arm, and end-effector.
Liu teaches, at page 1708, third paragraph under section I, a high speed field bus provides sufficiently improved communication speeds for controlling a robot.
In view of Pivac ‘258 and Liu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include, with the system as taught by Pivac, (re claim 16) wherein the system includes a communications system including a fieldbus network and wherein the control system communicates with the tracking system via the fieldbus network to determine the robot position; (re claim 17) wherein the fieldbus network is further coupled to: a) robot arm actuators; b) a robot base actuator; c) one or more end effector actuators; and, d) one or more sensors; and (re claim 18) wherein the tracking system includes: a) a tracking base connected to the fieldbus network; since Pivac ‘258 teaches a communication bus may connect the tracking system, controller, base, arm, and end-effector to provide communications for the robotic system. Liu teaches a high speed field bus provides sufficiently improved communication speeds for controlling a robot.
Pivac teaches:
Re claim 18. Wherein the tracking system includes: a) a tracking base positioned in the environment; and, b) a tracking target mounted to a component of the robot, wherein the tracking base is configured to detect the tracking target to allow a position and/or orientation of the tracking target relative to the tracking base to be determined (target orientation sensor 105, and laser tracker 101, Figure 2; and page 12, lines 22-27).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights