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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 28, 2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the taper angle” should read “a taper angle”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the cross-sectional area” should read “a cross-sectional area”.
In line 2, “the maximum” should read “a maximum”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the oxygen content” should read “an oxygen content”. 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 6-7 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 6 recites the limitation "the coating" in lines 1 and 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending the limitation after the preamble to recite “wherein at least the tip coating structure and the main coating structure form a coating of the coated pin, wherein the coating has an elliptical shape”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coating" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending the limitation after the preamble to recite “wherein at least the tip coating structure and the main coating structure form a coating, wherein the center of the electrically conductive core is positioned eccentrically in the coating”.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstreken et al. (US 5,332,449 A).
Regarding claim 1, Verstreken teaches an oxygen detecting element (an immersion sensor for measuring oxygen content in molten metals, Verstreken, Fig. 3, col. 2, lns. 57-58, col. 4, lns. 41-42), comprising a coated pin (a coated support pin 1, Fig. 3, col. 3, lns. 40-64, col. 4, lns. 36-37), the coated pin comprising an electrically conductive core which extends longitudinally from a main portion to a tip portion, wherein the tip portion ends in a tip end (the coated support pin 1 comprises an electrically conducting pin 1 which extends longitudinally from a main portion to a tip portion which ends in a free tip end, Fig. 3, see Image 1 below, col. 1, lns. 5-15, col. 3, lns. 40-42, claim 1) and wherein
(a) the tip portion is covered by a tip coating structure (CS-T) (the tip portion is covered by coatings 3 and 6, Fig. 3, see Image 1 below, col. 3, lns. 40-62, col. 4, lns. 9-14), wherein the tip coating structure (CS-T) comprises
(i) an inner coating which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the tip portion, the inner coating comprising a reference material (an inner reference material coating 3 which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the tip portion of the electrically conducting pin 1, Fig. 3, see Image 1 below, col. 3, lns. 40-45 & 63-68, col. 4, lns. 9-14), and
(ii) an outer coating which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the inner coating, the outer coating comprising an electrolyte material (an outer solid electrolyte material coating 6 which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the inner reference material coating 3, Fig. 3, see Image 1 below, col. 3, lns. 57-62, col. 4, lns. 4-8), and
(b) the main portion is covered by a main coating structure (CS-M) (the main portion is covered by coatings 3, 4, and 6, Fig. 3, see Image 1 below, col. 3, lns. 40-62, col. 4, lns. 9-14), wherein the main coating structure (CS-M) comprises
(i) an inner coating which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the main portion, the inner coating comprising a reference material (an inner reference material coating 3 which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the main portion of the electrically conducting pin 1, Fig. 3, see Image 1 below, col. 3, lns. 40-45 & 63-68, col. 4, lns. 9-14),
(ii) an intermediate coating which covers and is in direct contact with the inner coating, the intermediate coating comprising a refractory material (an intermediate aluminum oxide refractory material coating 4 which covers and is in direct contact with the inner reference material coating 3, Fig. 3, see Image 1 below, col. 3, lns. 49-57, col. 4, lns. 1-14), and
(iii) an outer coating which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the intermediate coating, the outer coating comprising an electrolyte material (an outer solid electrolyte material coating 6 which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the intermediate aluminum oxide refractory material coating 4, Fig. 3, see Image 1 below, col. 3, lns. 57-62, col. 4, lns. 4-8), wherein the electrically conductive core comprises a tapered section, the tapered section being a section comprising a cross-section which is tapered in a longitudinal direction towards the tip end (the electrically conducting pin 1 comprises at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 in the longitudinal direction towards the tip end, Fig. 3, see Image 1 below, col. 4, lns. 35-45).
PNG
media_image1.png
762
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1. Annotated version of Fig. 3 of Verstreken.
Verstreken teaches wherein the tapered section has a length LTS and the tip portion has a length LTP wherein LTS < LTP (the length of the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 is less than the length of the tip portion, Fig. 3, see Image 1 above, col. 4, lns. 35-45), and therefore Verstreken fails to teach LTS ≥ LTP.
However, Verstreken teaches that the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 in the area of the aluminum oxide refractory material 4 is a result-effective variable. Specifically, Verstreken teaches that the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing controls the reduction of heat loss through the support pin (Fig. 3, col. 3, lns. 7-10, col. 4, lns. 35-45). Since these particular parameters are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 U.S.P.Q. 215 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 of Verstreken to extend over more of the area of the aluminum oxide refractory material 4 such that LTS ≥ LTP through routine experimentation because doing so would yield the predictable desired reduction of heat loss through the support pin. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 2, Modified Verstreken teaches wherein the electrically conducting pin 1 comprises the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 that extends over more of the area of the aluminum oxide refractory material 4 (Fig. 3, col. 4, lns. 35-45, see modification supra). Modified Verstreken fails to explicitly teach wherein the tapered section extends over at least 10 % of the length of the electrically conductive core.
However, Verstreken teaches that the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 is a result-effective variable. Specifically, Verstreken teaches that the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing controls the reduction of heat loss through the support pin (Fig. 3, col. 3, lns. 7-10, col. 4, lns. 35-45). Since these particular parameters are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 U.S.P.Q. 215 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 of Modified Verstreken to extend over at least 10 % of the length of the electrically conducting pin 1 through routine experimentation because doing so would yield the predictable desired reduction of heat loss through the support pin. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 4, Modified Verstreken teaches that the cross-sectional area of the tip end of the tip portion is about the same as the maximum cross-sectional area of the electrically conducting pin 1 (Fig. 3, see Image 1 above), and therefore fails to teach wherein the cross-sectional area of the tip end is smaller than 40 % of the maximum cross-sectional area of the electrically conductive core.
However, Verstreken teaches that the electrically conducting pin 1 has at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 which reduces the loss of heat through the support pin 1, and that the resulting cross-sectional area of the cross-sectional narrowing 7 is about half of the maximum cross-sectional area of the support pin 1 (Fig. 3, col. 4, lns. 35-45). Verstreken teaches that the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 is a result-effective variable. Specifically, Verstreken teaches that the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing controls the reduction of heat loss through the support pin (Fig. 3, col. 3, lns. 7-10, col. 4, lns. 35-45). Since these particular parameters are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 U.S.P.Q. 215 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 of Modified Verstreken to extend to tip end of the electrically conducting pin 1 where it has a cross-sectional area smaller than 40% of the maximum cross-sectional area of the electrically conducting pin 1 through routine experimentation because doing so would yield the predictable desired reduction of heat loss through the support pin. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Modified Verstreken teaches wherein the electrically conducting pin 1 comprises the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 that extends over more of the area of the aluminum oxide refractory material 4 such that LTS ≥ LTP (Fig. 3, col. 4, lns. 35-45, see modification supra). Modified Verstreken fails to explicitly teach wherein the length of the tip portion LTP is at least 20 % of the length of the tapered section LTS.
However, Verstreken teaches that the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 is a result-effective variable. Specifically, Verstreken teaches that the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing controls the reduction of heat loss through the support pin (Fig. 3, col. 3, lns. 7-10, col. 4, lns. 35-45). Since these particular parameters are recognized as result-effective variables, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation. See In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 U.S.P.Q. 215 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 of Modified Verstreken such that the length of the tip portion LTP is at least 20 % of the length of the tapered section LTS through routine experimentation because doing so would yield the predictable desired reduction of heat loss through the support pin. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 6, Modified Verstreken teaches wherein the coating of the coated pin has an elliptical shape and wherein the coating comprises at least the tip coating structure and the main coating structure (the cross-sectional shape of the support pin 1 and the coatings 3, 4, 6 thereon is oval, Verstreken, Fig. 3, col. 2, lns. 65-68, col. 3, lns. 1-3 & 63-66).
Regarding claim 8, Modified Verstreken teaches the main portion covered by the coatings 3, 4, and 6 (Verstreken, Fig. 3, see Image 1 above, col. 3, lns. 40-62, col. 4, lns. 9-14). This embodiment of Modified Verstreken fails to teach wherein the main portion extends over more than 30 % of the length of the electrically conductive core.
However, Verstreken teaches an alternative embodiment where the main portion covered by all three coatings 3, 4, 6 extends over a majority of the electrically conducting pin 1 (Verstreken, Fig. 1, col. 3, lns. 40-62). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). It has been held that the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2125(II).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the main portion covered by all three coatings 3, 4, 6 of Modified Verstreken to extend over a majority (and thus more than 30%) of the electrically conducting pin 1 as taught by an alternative embodiment of Verstreken in order to yield the predictable result of measuring oxygen content in molten metals. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Verstreken teaches wherein the main coating structure has a larger minimal thickness than the tip coating structure (the main portion is covered by the coatings 3, 4, and 6 which have a total thickness of 200 µm + 200 µm + 300 µm = 700 µm, Fig. 3, see Image 1 above, col. 3, lns. 40-62; the tip portion is covered by the coatings 3 and 6 which have a total thickness of 200 µm + 300 µm = 500 µm, Fig. 3, see Image 1 above, col. 3, lns. 40-62; therefore, the total thickness of the main coating structure is larger than the total thickness of the tip coating structure). Furthermore, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Verstreken teaches wherein the tip coating structure has a minimal thickness of at least 0.06 mm (the tip portion is covered by the coatings 3 and 6 which have a total thickness of 200 µm + 300 µm = 500 µm = 0.5 mm, Fig. 3, see Image 1 above, col. 3, lns. 40-62).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Verstreken teaches wherein the main coating structure has a minimal thickness of at least 0.07 mm (the main portion is covered by the coatings 3, 4, and 6 which have a total thickness of 200 µm + 200 µm + 300 µm = 700 µm = 0.7 mm, Fig. 3, see Image 1 above, col. 3, lns. 40-62).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Verstreken teaches wherein the maximum cross sectional-area of the coated pin is located within the main portion (the main portion is covered by all three coatings 3, 4, and 6 and thus has the maximum cross sectional-area of the coated pin, Fig. 3, see Image 1 above, col. 3, lns. 40-62). While patent drawings are not to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). It has been held that the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2125(II).
Regarding claim 13, Modified Verstreken teaches wherein the electrically conductive core comprises a third portion and the third portion is covered with a third coating structure (CS-3) (the electrically conducting pin 1 comprises a third portion covered with coatings 4 and 6, Fig. 3, see Image 1 above, col. 3, lns. 40-64, col. 4, lns. 9-14) which comprises
i) an intermediate coating which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the third portion of the electrically conductive core, the intermediate coating comprising a refractory material (an intermediate aluminum oxide refractory material coating 4 which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the third portion of the electrically conducting pin 1, Fig. 3, see Image 1 above, col. 3, lns. 49-57, col. 4, lns. 1-14), and
(ii) an outer coating which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the intermediate coating, the outer coating comprising an electrolyte material (an outer solid electrolyte material coating 6 which covers and is in direct contact with at least a part of the intermediate aluminum oxide refractory material coating 4, Fig. 3, see Image 1 above, col. 3, lns. 57-62, col. 4, lns. 4-8).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Verstreken teaches an immersion sensor comprising the oxygen detecting element according to Claim 1 (the immersion sensor comprising the coated support pin 1 for measuring oxygen content in molten metals, Fig. 3, col. 2, lns. 57-58, col. 3, lns. 40-64, col. 4, lns. 36-42, see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Verstreken teaches a method for measuring the oxygen content of a metal melt with the oxygen detecting element according to Claim 1 (measuring oxygen content in molten metals with the immersion sensor comprising the coated support pin 1, Fig. 3, col. 2, lns. 56-58, col. 3, lns. 40-64, col. 4, lns. 36-42, see rejection of claim 1 supra).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstreken as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuwajima et al. (JPS 60149961 A) (provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on July 24, 2026 and references herein made with respect to the provided English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Verstreken teaches the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 (Verstreken, Fig. 3, col. 4, lns. 35-45). Modified Verstreken fails to teach wherein the taper angle of the tapered section is smaller than 40°.
Kuwajima teaches a solid electrolyte oxygen sensor for measuring the oxygen concentration in molten metals (Kuwajima, pg. 3, first three lines). Kuwajima teaches that using a tapered oxygen sensor provides fast electromotive force response speed (Kuwajima, Figs. 2-4, pg. 3, last five lines, pg. 4, first two lines). Kuwajima teaches that the taper angle is typically selected within the range of 2 to 20 degrees (Kuwajima, Figs. 2-4, pg. 4, beginning of last paragraph).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the taper angle of the at least one circumferential cross-sectional narrowing 7 of Modified Verstreken to be within the range of 2 to 20 degrees as taught by Kuwajima because it would provide fast electromotive response speed (Kuwajima, Figs. 2-4, pg. 3, last five lines, pg. 4, first two lines), and also yield the predictable result of reduction of heat loss through the support pin (Verstreken, Fig. 3, col. 3, lns. 7-10, col. 4, lns. 35-45).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verstreken as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kolb (DE 3541806 C1) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 7, Modified Verstreken teaches wherein the coating comprises at least the tip coating structure and the main coating structure (the coatings 3, 4, and 6, Verstreken, Fig. 3, col. 3, lns. 40-64), and that the electrically conducting pin 1 appears to be arranged centrally in the coatings 3, 4, and 6 (Verstreken, Fig. 3, col. 3, lns. 40-64). Modified Verstreken therefore fails to teach wherein the center of the electrically conductive core is positioned eccentrically in the coating. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets “eccentrically” to mean not centered.
Kolb teaches an appliance for determining oxygen in steel melts (Kolb, abstract). Kolb teaches an electrochemical cell 11 comprising a zirconium oxide tube 17 in which an electrically non-conductive material 18 is inserted (Kolb, Figs. 5-6, para. [0032]). Kolb teaches that the electrically non-conductive material 18 is provided with a channel 21 open to its surface, and the channel 21 is equipped with a reference material 22 which has a metallic conductor 23 embedded therein (Kolb, Figs. 5-6, para. [0032]). Kolb teaches that the metallic conductor 23 is not arranged in the center of the coatings 22, 18, 17 (Kolb, Figs. 5-6).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the center of the electrically conducting pin of Modified Verstreken to be arranged eccentrically in the coatings as taught by Kolb in order to yield the predictable result of the electrically conducting pin with surrounding coatings of a reference material and solid electrolyte for determining oxygen in molten metals. Additionally, generally, differences in a rearrangement of parts will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C). Therefore, it would have been a matter of choice to arrange the center of the electrically conducting pin eccentrically in the coatings, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/V.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794
