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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 17/978,629 and 18/481,515, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The prior-filed applications fail to disclose a disk component comprising a gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not entitled to the benefit of the prior applications.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 5-10 and 19-20 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.
Claims 5 and 6 recite “the performance requirements”. The original disclosure gives no objective measure of what performance requirements are considered. The performance requirements for one particular engine or mission profile are different than another engine or another mission profile. One having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy contains chromium, tungsten, molybdenum, rhenium, cobalt, or mixtures thereof as principal elements that combine with nickel to form a gamma matrix”. It is not clear what percentage of materials is required to form “principal elements”. There is no objective measure in the original disclosure and a person having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation.
Claim 19 recites “a third stream”. There is no recitation of first or second streams. It is therefore unclear if this limitation requires three streams or if “third” is used as a generic adjective and this limitation requires only one stream. Clarification is required.
Claims dependent thereon inherit the deficiencies of the respective base claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 11-14 of US Patent 12,410,753 (‘753) in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381).
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of ‘753 teaches a gas turbine engine comprising:
a turbomachine comprising a compressor section, a combustion section, and a turbine section arranged in serial flow order, the compressor section having a high pressure compressor defining a high pressure compressor exit area (AHPCExit) in square inches; and
wherein the gas turbine engine defines a redline exhaust gas temperature (EGT) in degrees Celsius, a total sea level static thrust output (FnTotal) in pounds, and a corrected specific thrust, wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 42 and less than or equal to 90, the corrected specific thrust determined as follows: FnTotal x EGT / (AHPCExit2 x 1000).
Claim 1 of ‘753 is silent on a disk component within the turbomachine, wherein the disk component comprises a gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy.
Dial teaches a gas turbine engine component (paragraph 18 describes a gas turbine assembly) within the turbomachine (paragraph 18, the gas turbine), wherein the gas turbine component comprises a gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy (paragraph 18).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘753s invention to include a gas turbine engine component within the turbomachine, wherein the gas turbine component comprises a gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy in order to strengthen the component and reduce the formation of microcracks as suggested and taught by Dial in paragraphs 17-18.
Dial is silent on the gas turbine engine component being a disk component.
Groh teaches a disk component comprises a gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy (paragraph 30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ‘753 in view of Dial’s invention to include comprises a gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy in order to improve performance of the disk as suggested and taught by Groh in paragraph 4.
Regarding claim 2, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Groh further teaches wherein the disk component is a turbine disk or a compressor disk (paragraphs 20-21 describe a compressor disk).
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Groh further teaches wherein the disk component is a compressor disk (paragraphs 20-21 describe a compressor disk).
Regarding claim 4, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Dial further teaches The gas turbine engine of claim 1, wherein the disk component is an additively manufactured disk component (paragraphs 15).
Regarding claim 5, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Dial further teaches wherein the gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy is formed by powder metallurgy (paragraph 14) to provide creep (paragraph 22), tensile, and fatigue crack growth properties (forming the component will inherently provide tensile and fatigue crack growth properties) to meet the performance requirements of the disk component within the gas turbine engine (See 112 above, for purposes of examination this is assumed to require that the part provide the properties listed earlier in the claim).
Regarding claim 6, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Dial further teaches wherein the gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy exhibits creep and hold time fatigue crack growth rate characteristics at temperatures of 1200°F to meet the performance requirements of the disk component within the gas turbine engine (paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 7, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 2 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1000 °C and less than 1300 °C.
Regarding claim 8, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 3 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1100 °C and less than 1250 °C.
Regarding claim 9, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 4 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1150 degree Celsius and less than 1250 degrees Celsius.
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Dial further teaches wherein the gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy contains chromium, tungsten, molybdenum, rhenium, cobalt, or mixtures thereof as principal elements that combine with nickel to form a gamma matrix (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 11, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Dial further teaches wherein the gamma prime precipitation-strengthened nickel-based superalloy contains aluminum, titanium, tantalum, niobium, vanadium, or mixtures thereof as principal elements that combine with nickel to form a gamma prime precipitate strengthening phase (paragraph 21).
Regarding claim 12, claim 3 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Dial further teaches wherein the gamma prime precipitate strengthening phase comprises Ni3(Al,Ti) (paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 13, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Groh further teaches wherein the disk component is a turbine disk or a compressor disk (paragraphs 20-21 describe a compressor disk).
Regarding claim 14, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 5 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1000 degree Celsius and less than 1300 degrees Celsius, and wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 45.
Regarding claim 15, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 6 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the EGT is greater than 1000 degree Celsius and less than 1300 degrees Celsius, and wherein the corrected specific thrust is greater than or equal to 50.
Regarding claim 16, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 7 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the turbine section comprises a high pressure turbine having a first stage of high pressure turbine rotor blades, and wherein the gas turbine engine further comprises:
a cooled cooling air system in fluid communication with the first stage of high pressure turbine rotor blades.
Regarding claim 17, claim 1 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 11 of ‘753 further teaches a primary fan driven by the turbomachine.
Regarding claim 18, claim 11 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 12 of ‘753 further teaches an inlet duct downstream of the primary fan and upstream of the compressor section of the turbomachine; and
a secondary fan located within the inlet duct.
Regarding claim 19, claim 12 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 13 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the gas turbine engine defines a bypass passage over the turbomachine, and wherein the gas turbine engine defines a third stream extending from a location downstream of the secondary fan to the bypass passage.
Regarding claim 20, claim 13 of ‘753 in view of Dial and Groh teach the invention as claimed and described above. Claim 14 of ‘753 further teaches wherein the secondary fan is a single stage secondary fan.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,107 (‘107) in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,428,992 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/033,042 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,503,980 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,244 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,124 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,152 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/045,134 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,645 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,619 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,668 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,637 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/055,734 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/069,982 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/070,161 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/083,161 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/194,584 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/210,793 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/210,808 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,722 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,777 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/221,742 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,827 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,801 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/235,903 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/250,221 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/250,310 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/254,227 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,761 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,709 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/265,747 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,574 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,587 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/279,541 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,636 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,588 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/293,611 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/305,970 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/305,856 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/333,833 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/348,974 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/333,727 in view of Dial et al. (US 2018/0002785) and Groh et al. (US 2005/0084381) in the same manner as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katheryn Malatek whose telephone number is (571)272-5689. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/KATHERYN A MALATEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741