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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitations is/are: clamping means in claim 1.
Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed recites clamping means to be a mechanical clamp attached to the end of a hydraulic ram or a magnet on a robot arm and equivalents thereof ([0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tradt (US 4,852,237).
Claim 1:
Tradt discloses a method of attaching exterior vehicle parts to a vehicle assembly structure (title), the method comprising:
providing an automated assembly cell (fig. 1) having one or more fixtures (10), each fixture (10) corresponding to an exterior vehicle part (4) (figs. 1-3, col 6, lines 11-20);
referencing a single global datum (3) established within the automated assembly cell and decoupled from dimensional variations of the vehicle assembly structure, wherein the single global datum serves as a universal reference point for aligning each exterior vehicle part (4) for attachment to the vehicle assembly structure within the automated assembly cell (fig. 1, col. 6, lines 23-27);
securing an exterior vehicle part (4) to a respective fixture (10) using a vacuum clamp (11, 12) or other clamping means (11, 12) (figs. 1-2, col. 6, lines 46-48);
applying a structural adhesive (17) to a secured exterior vehicle part (4) or to a part-receiving location (19) on the vehicle assembly structure (2) (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines 12-20); and
moving the secured exterior vehicle part (4) into a respective nominal position relative to the single global datum (3) to compress the structural adhesive (17) and complete installation of the exterior vehicle part (4) to the vehicle assembly structure (2) (figs. 1-5, col. 8, lines 26-34).
Claim 2:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the part-receiving location (19) is included in a body frame of the vehicle assembly structure (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines 17-20).
Claim 3:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the exterior vehicle parts (4) are moved serially into their respective nominal positions relative to the single global datum (3) (abstract, col. 8, lines 26-34).
Claim 4:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the exterior vehicle parts (4, 17, 18) are moved concurrently into their respective nominal positions relative to the single global datum (3) (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines12-15).
Claim 6:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising providing an adhesive gap to compensate for irregularities in an exterior vehicle part, a fixture, or a substructure of the vehicle assembly structure (see annotated reproduction of fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 17:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising interfacing additional exterior vehicle parts (18) to the vehicle assembly structure downstream in an assembly line to further completion of an assembly of a vehicle (col. 7, lines 15-16).
Claim 18:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 17, wherein interfacing of the additional exterior vehicle parts (4) to the vehicle assembly structure is devoid of a dimensional evaluation of an assembled vehicle (col. 7, lines 15-16).
Claim 1 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonnett et al. (US 5,845,387).
Claim 1:
Bonnett discloses a method of attaching exterior vehicle parts to a vehicle assembly structure (abstract), the method comprising:
providing an automated assembly cell (10) having one or more fixtures (42), each fixture (42) corresponding to an exterior vehicle part (104) (fig.1, col. 4, lines 11-16 and col 5, lines 40-48);
referencing a single global datum (13) established within the automated assembly cell and decoupled from dimensional variations of the vehicle assembly structure, wherein the single global datum serves as a universal reference point for aligning each exterior vehicle part (104) for attachment to the vehicle assembly structure within the automated assembly cell (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 11-18);
securing an exterior vehicle part (104) to a respective fixture (42) using other clamping means (magnets) (col. 5, lines 40-48);
applying a structural adhesive (94) to a secured exterior vehicle part (104) on the vehicle assembly structure (figs. 5-6, col. 5, lines 29-34); and
moving the secured exterior vehicle part (104) into a respective nominal position relative to the single global datum (13) to compress the structural adhesive (94) and complete installation of the exterior vehicle part (104) to the vehicle assembly structure (56) (figs. 2-6 and 14, col. 5, lines 3-12 and col. 5, lines 28-38).
Claim 10:
Bonnett discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising performing a tacking operation (alignment of recess (250) and knob (254)) concurrently with an application of the structural adhesive (94) to enable continued assembly of the vehicle assembly structure pending a curing of the structural adhesive (figs. 6-11, col. 5, lines 63-67).
Claim 11:
Bonnett discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the tacking operation includes an application of one or more datum pins (254) to the exterior vehicle part or the vehicle assembly structure to fix a tacked exterior vehicle part (104) in its nominal position before the structural adhesive has cured (fig. 1, col 5, lines 63-68).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tradt (US 4,852,237).
Claim 5:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the respective nominal position is or corresponds to an intended or final position of the exterior vehicle part (4) within the vehicle assembly structure (2) (figs. 1-5). Tradt does not recite a design specification. Instead, Tradt discloses a process and device for automatically mounting a first component (windshields) on a second component (motor vehicles) (figs. 1-5, col. 1, lines 8-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a design specification is required in order to properly fit (mount) the first component to the second component, since the size of the first component must correspond and align to the size of the second component for proper mounting of the first and second components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the respective nominal position is or corresponds to an intended or final position of the exterior vehicle part within the vehicle assembly structure as determined by a design specification as required of claim 5.
Claim 7:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 6; and, Tradt fails to disclose the adhesive gap accommodates differential heating or material properties between an adhered exterior vehicle part and the vehicle assembly structure. Instead, Tradt discloses an adhesive gap of undefined size. The transitive verb accommodate is being interpreted as meaning “to make room for” or “to make fit, suitable” in accordance with Merriam-Webster Dictionary. MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and 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.” See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Tradt to provide an adhesive gap sized to accommodate differential heating or material properties, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Tradt renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 7.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tradt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaillard (WO 2023/180217 A1) as provided by Gaillard et al. (US 2025/0136847 A1) as an English language equivalent.
Claim 8:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1; and, Tradt fails to disclose selecting a structural adhesive chemistry. Instead, Tradt discloses a generic step of applying a generic structural adhesive (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines 12-20).
Gaillard discloses a moisture-curing polyurethane composition (abstract) selected for a final mechanical property of an adhesive bond between an exterior vehicle part and the vehicle assembly structure ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic adhesive of Tradt for the moisture-curing polyurethane composition of Gaillard since it was known that generic adhesives and moisture-curing polyurethane composition adhesives are analogues for joining parts. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Tradt by selecting a structural adhesive chemistry as taught by Gaillard in order to improve initial strength, sag resistance and threading (Gaillard, [0016]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 9:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1; and, Tradt fails to disclose the structural adhesive includes polyurethane. Instead, Tradt discloses a generic step of applying a structural adhesive (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines 12-20).
Gaillard discloses a moisture-curing polyurethane composition (abstract) comprising a moisture-curing polyurethane adhesive especially for motor vehicle construction ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic adhesive of Tradt for the moisture-curing polyurethane composition of Gaillard since it was known that generic adhesives and moisture-curing polyurethane composition adhesives are analogues for joining parts. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Tradt by selecting a structural adhesive chemistry as taught by Gaillard in order to improve initial strength, sag resistance and threading (Gaillard, [0016]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnett as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lanni (US 2007/0234547 A1).
Claim 12:
Bonnett discloses the method of claim 11; and, Bonnett fails to disclose the one or more datum pins includes a self-piercing datum pin.
Lanni a method of installing a self-piercing pin (abstract) further comprising providing a self-piercing pin (fig. 1, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic datum pin of Bonnett for the self-piercing datum pin of Lanni since it was known that generic datum pins and self-piercing datum pins are analogues for datum locator pins (Bonnett col. 5, lines 63-67 and Lanni, [0032]). See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Bonnett by providing a self-piercing pin as taught by Lanni in order to provide for piercing into a workpiece form a front side without there being a pre-formed hole being provided in the workpiece (Lanni, [0032]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnett as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tradt et al. (US 4,852,237).
Claim 13:
Embodiment A of Bonnett discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the one or more datum pins for insertion into a piercing medium or other substrate to fix a tacked exterior vehicle part in its nominal position before the structural adhesive has cured (fig. 5, col. 5, lines 35-39 and fig. 1, col. 5, lines 63-68). Embodiment A of Bonnett fails to disclose the one or more datum pins includes a ridged datum pin. Instead, Embodiment A of Bonnett discloses a generic datum pin (122 and/or 254) (fig. 5, col. 5, lines 35-39 and fig. 1, col. 5, lines 63-68). Embodiment B of Bonnett further discloses providing one or more datum pins including a ridged datum pin (22) (fig. 9. col. 6, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic datum pin of Embodiment A of Bonnett for the ridged datum pin of Embodiment B of Bonnett since it was known that generic datum pins and ridged datum pins are analogues for datum locator pins (Bonnett fig. 5, col. 5, lines 35-39 and fig. 1, col. 5, lines 63-68 and fig. 9. col. 6, lines 1-14). See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Embodiment A of Bonnett by providing a ridged datum pin as taught by Embodiment B of Bonnett in order to provide positive alignment for placement of the workpiece (Bonnett, col. 6, lines 1-14). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Examiner note: Merriam-Webster defines the term ridge to mean “an elevated body part or structure” or “an elongate crest or a linear series of crests.” Therefore, the datum pin of Bonnett is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the metes and bound of a “ridged datum pin” as evidenced in the annotated reproduction of fig. 9, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
784
1016
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnett as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Czinger (US 2022/0097185 A1).
Claim 15:
Bonnett discloses the method of claim 10; and, Bonnett fails to disclose a hot melt adhesive applied concurrently or in succession to the structural adhesive. Instead, Bonnett discloses a generic step of applying generic adhesive (col. 5, lines 29-39).
Czinger discloses an apparatus for assembling structures (abstract) further comprising a tacking operation further including a hot melt adhesive applied concurrently or in succession to the structural adhesive ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic adhesive of Bonnet for the quick-cure adhesive of Czinger since it was known that generic adhesives and quick-cure adhesives are analogues for joining parts. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Bonnett by providing a quick-cure adhesive as taught by Czinger in order to allow for the vehicle parts to be retained in their relative positions so the other parts may be joined without waiting for the structural adhesive to cure (Czinger, [0029]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 16:
Bonnett in view of Czinger renders obvious the method of claim 15, wherein the hot melt adhesive cures faster than the structural adhesive, facilitating an accelerated takt time (Czinger, [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 11, wherein the one or more datum pins are heated prior to installation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Global Datum – Single, Fixed, Decoupled Reference
Regarding claims 1-4, 6 and 17-18, Applicant argues the cited prior art fails to disclose the claimed “global datum” because the specification describes the global datum as a single, fixed reference point established within the automated assembly cell prior to handling parts, which is decoupled from dimensional variations and used by a positioning system to locate each exterior vehicle part. This is not persuasive because Applicant’s argument improperly imports limitations from the specification into the claims. While the specification describes the global datum as being “decoupled” from dimensional variations and established prior to part handling, the claims do not recite any structural or operational limitations that require such decoupling or any specific implementation of the datum beyond service as a reference for positioning.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a “global datum” reasonably encompasses any reference structure or reference position used to establish part location within an assembly environment. As such, Tradt’s precise transport unit, which positions the vehicle relative to a manipulator to establish a known reference relationship, meets the claimed global datum.
Universal Reference for Multiple Exterior Parts
Applicant further argues that the claimed global datum serves as a universal reference point for aligning multiple different exterior vehicle parts, whereas Tradt is limited to a specific application (e.g. windshield mounting) and does not teach such universal referencing. This is not persuasive because the claims do not require the global datum to simultaneously or uniquely control alignment of multiple different exterior parts in the manner asserted by the Applicant. Rather, the claims broadly recite referencing a global datum for positioning exterior vehicle parts. A reference system that establishes a known positional relationship for a component relative to a fixed structure inherently serves as a reference for positioning that component, and such use is not limited by the number or type of parts handled. The prior art’s use of a fixed reference structure to position a component, as required of independent claim 1, satisfies the claimed functionality, regardless of whether the reference explicitly describes multiple different parts. Therefore, the prior art teaches the claimed use of a global datum for position an exterior vehicle part as required of independent claim 1.
Decoupling From Dimensional Variations
Applicant further argues the claimed global datum is “decoupled” from dimensional variations of the vehicle body or exterior parts and that the prior art fails to disclose or fairly suggest such decoupling. This is not persuasive because the claims do not recite any specific step or act that achieves or enforces the alleged “decoupling” from dimensional variations, nor do they define how such decoupling is implemented during the claimed method. The recitation of “decoupled from the dimensional variations” is functional and broadly stated, without requiring any particular process step, measurement, calibration, or control operation that would distinguish the claimed method from the conventional assembly process of Tradt. As such, the limitation merely describes an intended result of the claimed method, rather than imposing a concrete operational requirement. The prior art’s method of positioning parts relative to a reference structure inherently satisfies this broadly stated result.
Bonnett – Global Datum
Regarding claims 1 and 10-11, Applicant argues that Bonnett fails to disclose a global datum because it does not provide a single, universal reference point that is decoupled from dimensional variation and used for positioning all exterior parts. This is not persuasive because, as discussed above, the claims do not require the specific characteristics asserted by Applicant. Bonnett discloses a base structure that supports and aligns components and establishes a positional reference for assembly operations. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such a base structure constitutes a global datum because it provides a reference from which parts are positioned and aligned.
Applicant further argues that Bonnett does not disclose moving the exterior vehicle part relative to the global datum. This is not persuasive because Bonnett explicitly discloses moving a secured exterior vehicle part into a nominal position relative to a reference structure to complete installation. Movement of a part into a defined position relative to a reference inherently constitutes movement relative to that reference.
Bonnett – not established within the assembly cell
Applicant’s argument that Bonnett’s locating features are not “established within the automated assembly cell” is not persuasive because the claims do not require any particular timing, sequence or manner in which the global datum is established. The claims broadly recite a global datum established within the automated assembly cell and used as a reference for positioning exterior vehicle parts. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a reference structure that exists within the assembly environment and is used during assembly operations satisfies this limitation, regardless of whether it is pre-installed, integrated into the system, or formed as part of the assembly structure. Bonnett discloses a base structure that is present within the assembly environment and provides a reference for supporting and aligning components during installation. As such, the base structure constitutes a global datum established within the automated assembly cell as required by the claims.
Bonnett – Decoupled
Applicant further argues Bonnett fails to disclose a datum “decoupled from dimensional variations”. This is not persuasive because the claims do not recite any specific step or operation that achieves such decoupling. The recitation is functional and describes an intended result rather than a concrete process limitation. Positioning a component relative to a fixed reference structure, as disclosed in Bonnett, inherently reduces dependence on dimensional variation and satisfies the broadly recited limitation.
Bonnett – Universal Reference
Applicant further argues Bonnett fails to disclose a global datum serving as a universal reference point for all exterior vehicle parts, this is not persuasive because the claims do not require that the global datum simultaneously or exclusively control positioning of multiple exterior parts in the manner asserted by Applicant. Rather, the claims broadly require referencing a global datum for positioning exterior vehicle parts. Bonnett’s base structure provides a positional reference for aligning and installing components, which meets the claimed limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Bonnett – Vacuum Means
Applicant further argues Bonnett fails to disclose vacuum clamps or any vacuum-based clamping of exterior panels to fixtures. This is not persuasive because Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the claimed invention. The claimed invention does not require vacuum clamps or any vacuum-based clamping. Applicant’s claimed invention requires a vacuum clamp or other clamping means.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Isings et al. (US 2025/0222879 A1) discloses a bracket assembly for mounting a lidar system to a vehicle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights