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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 8, 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the single switch input as recited in claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the “single switch input” as recited in claim 3.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the operator control” in line 13, should read --the operator control interface.-- Same objection applies to all pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure, as originally filed, does not disclose that the invention comprising a single switch input as amended in claim 3. Since the drawings and the specification failed to disclose the limitation “single switch input,” it is unclear if the limitation is a structural element as an “input switch” or an electronic signal of the control? Clarification is respectfully requested.
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 1-3, 6-7 and 9-21 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.
Line 14 of claim 1 recites “a sprayer calibration selection input to select one of the at least two different spray patterns and off.” The limitation is already recited in lines 13. It is unclear why the limitation is being repeated? Is a total of two “sprayer calibration selection inputs” is required in the claim? Clarification is respectfully requested. For the purpose of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as a repeated limitation. Same rejection applies to claim 16.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of spreader options and the plurality of sprayer options" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to claim 16.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one or more electronically controlled gates" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Same rejection applies to all pending claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "spreader calibration selection input or the sprayer calibration selection input" in lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 3, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 further define the “input” received from the operator control. However, claim 1 is an apparatus claim (the actual subject matter of the claimed invention) and the “input” is not a positively recited limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Similar rejection applies to claims 3, 6 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doherty et al. (US 5,904,296. Doherty hereinafter).
With respect to claim 1, Doherty discloses a turf spreader and sprayer machine (40. Figs. 1-12 and Col. 4, line 16), comprising:
a frame (of 40);
a hopper (48) mounted to the frame to hold a spreadable material (44), wherein the hopper further includes one or more electronically controlled gates (50, 46, 142, 144 and 148) to dispense from the turf spreader and sprayer machine the spreadable material in at least two different spread patterns and off (Figs. 6a-7c);
a tank (54) to hold a liquid product;
one or more electronically controlled spray tips (64) to dispense from the turf spreader and sprayer machine the liquid product in at least two different spray patterns and off (Figs. 6a-7c);
a spray pump (136, 138 and 140) disposed between the tank and the one or more electronically controlled (Figs. 8-10) spray tips;
an operator control interface (control box. Figs. 3-5) to receive input from an operator, the operator control including a spreader calibration selection input (via knobs 86 (liquid can alternatively also be spread by means of a rotating disk. Col. 5, lines 57-58), 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 116) to select one of the at least two different spread patterns (Interpretation A: by the rotating disk and set of spray bars; Interpretation B: knobs 86, 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 116 are proportionally control knobs. Col. 9, lines 20-62. Therefore, the spread patterns can be 100%, 50% and 30%) and off and a sprayer calibration selection input to select one of the at least two different spray patterns and off;
wherein at least one of the plurality of spreader options (switches and knobs that control the liquids in control box. Figs. 3-5) and the plurality of sprayer options (switches and knobs that control the granules in control box) is a user created option (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention);
a control (elements on control box) (electrically) coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled gates, and the one or more electronically controlled spray tips,
Limitations from lines 21-29 of claim 1 further defines non-positively recited limitations/elements (the input) of the claim. The term “to” in line 20 of claim 1 clearly indicated that the input is not a positively recited limitations/elements.
Alternatively, Doherty discloses the control to (capable of) (Fig. 8):
receive input, from the operator control interface;
dispense, based on the input received from the operator control interface, the liquid product or the spreadable material (via 130); and
wherein when the liquid product is dispensed, the control provides a signal (via electrical lines above control box. Fig. 8) to the one or more electronically controlled spray tips to regulate a flow and a pattern of the liquid product (via valves 78, 82, 80 and pumps 146, 136, 138 and 140); and
wherein when the spreadable material is dispensed, the control provides a signal (via electrical lines on the right of control box. Fig. 8) to the one or more electronically controlled gates to regulate a flow and a pattern of the spreadable material (via 50, 46, 142, 144 and 148).
With respect to claim 2, Doherty discloses wherein the input received from the operator control is a selection of a spray mode or a spread mode (via master control switch 130).
With respect to claim 3, Doherty discloses the turf spreader and sprayer machine of claim 2 further comprising a single switch input (via control box in Figs. 3-5) coupled to the control,
wherein the control is further configured, once the turf spreader and sprayer machine is at a calibrated (desired) speed to (capable of):
in response to actuation of the single switch input (signal/control from the control box in Figs. 3-5) by the operator, dispense the liquid product when the spray mode is selected; and
in response to actuation of the single switch input (signal/control from the control box in Figs. 3-5) by the operator, dispense the spreadable material when the spread mode is selected (via master control switch 130).
With respect to claim 6, Doherty discloses wherein the control is further configured to (capable of) alter a speed (On or OFF) of an impeller (50 and 46) based on the spreader calibration selection input (Figs. 3-7c and via master control switch 130 in Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 7, Doherty discloses wherein the regulation of the flow of the spreadable material by the electronically controlled gates is based on the spreader calibration selection input or manual adjustment by a user at the control interface (Figs. 3-7c and via master control switch 130 in Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 9, Doherty discloses wherein a speed of the spray pump varies (On or OFF).
With respect to claim 10, Doherty discloses wherein the speed of the spray pump increases (from OFF to ON) when the one or more electronically controlled spray tips are activated (master control switch 130 is in “BOTH”).
With respect to claim 16, Doherty discloses a turf spreader and sprayer machine (40. Figs. 1-12 and Col. 4, line 16), comprising
a frame (of 40);
a hopper (48) mounted to the frame to hold spreadable material (44), wherein the hopper further includes one or more electronically controlled gates (50, 46, 142, 144 and 148) to dispense from the turf spreader and sprayer machine the spreadable material in at least two different spread patterns (Interpretation A: by the rotating disk and set of spray bars; Interpretation B: knobs 86, 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 116 are proportionally control knobs. Col. 9, lines 20-62. Therefore, the spread patterns can be 100%, 50% and 30%) and off (Figs. 6a-7c);
a tank (54) to hold a liquid product;
one or more electronically controlled spray tips (64) to dispense from the turf spreader and sprayer machine the liquid product in at least two different spray patterns and off (Figs. 6a-7c);
a spray pump (136, 138 and 140) disposed between the tank and the one or more spray tips;
one or more speed sensors (knob 86 and software internal to the control box 70. Col. 10, lines 28-42) disposed on one or more drive wheels (disk 46);
an operator control interface (control box. Figs. 3-5) to receive input from an operator; the operator control including a spreader calibration selection input (via knobs 86 (liquid can alternatively also be spread by means of a rotating disk. Col. 5, lines 57-58), 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 116) to select one of the at least two different spread patterns (Interpretation A: by the rotating disk and set of spray bars; Interpretation B: knobs 86, 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 116 are proportionally control knobs. Col. 9, lines 20-62. Therefore, the spread patterns can be 100%, 50% and 30%) and off and a sprayer calibration selection input to select one of the at least two different spray patterns and off;
wherein at least one of the plurality of spreader options (switches and knobs that control the liquids in control box. Figs. 3-5) and the plurality of sprayer options (switches and knobs that control the granules in control box) is a user created option (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention);
a control (elements on control box. Figs. 3-5) (electrically) coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled gates, and the one or more electronically controlled spray tips,
Limitations from lines 21-31 of claim 16 further defines non-positively recited limitations/elements (the input) of the claim. The term “to” in line 20 of claim 16 clearly indicated that the input is not a positively recited limitations/elements.
Alternatively, Doherty discloses the control configured to (capable of) (Fig. 8):
receive, from the spreader calibration selection input or the sprayer calibration selection input (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention), a calibration selection (116, 118, 120 and 130);
receive, from the operator control interface, a mode selection (at 130) from the operator; and
dispense, the liquid product or the spreadable material, based on the calibration selection, the mode selection, or the pattern selection (control elements on control box. Figs. 3-5);
wherein flow of the liquid product or flow of the spreadable material based on speed data from the one or more speed sensors (via the software internal to the control box 70).
With respect to claim 17, Doherty discloses wherein the control is further configured to (capable of) regulate of the flow of the spreadable material by actuation of the electronically controlled gates (50, 46, 142, 144 and 148) based the calibration selection, the mode selection, or the pattern selection (Figs. 3-8).
With respect to claim 21, Doherty discloses wherein the control is further configured to (capable of) alter a speed of an impeller (auger flight of auger 50 and vanes or blades of the spinning disks 45) based on the selection of one of the at least two different spread patterns spreader calibration selection input in combination the one or more electronically controlled gates.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Kaiser (US 4,770,344).
With respect to claim 11, Doherty discloses the machine as in claim 1 except for wherein the control is further configured to (capable of): activate an agitation mode based on operator input to the operator control; wherein when the one or more electronically controlled spray tips are inactive, a three-way valve switches to a large nozzle returning the liquid product to the tank; and wherein when the one or more spray tips are active, the three-way valve switches to a small nozzle directing the liquid product to the one or more spray tips.
However, Kaiser teaches an applicator system (Fig. 1) with a control (80) wherein the control is configured to (capable of): activate an agitation mode (by turning on 24) based on operator input (presetting or designated operation) to the operator control; wherein when the one or more electronically controlled spray tips (of 52 and 64) are inactive (not spraying), a three-way valve (82) switches to a large (annular orifice in 64 appear larger) nozzle (58 of 64) returning the liquid product to the tank; and wherein when the one or more spray tips are active (spraying), the three-way valve is switches to a small nozzle (58 of 52) directing the liquid product to the one or more spray tips.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a three-way valve to recirculate the liquid product, as taught by Kaiser, to Doherty’s machine, in order to recirculation the powder source (Abstract, lines 1-20 and Fig. 1).
Claims 12-14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Kowalchuk (US 9,730,377).
With respect to claims 12-14, Doherty discloses the machine as in claims 1 and 16 except for wherein the control is further configured to ground meter the flow of the liquid product or the flow of the spreadable material based on speed data (claims 12 and 19), wherein the speed data is obtained from one or more wheel speed sensors disposed on one or more drive wheels (claim 13) and wherein the control is further configured to:
determine, based on the speed data, whether the applicator machine is turning;
determine, based on the speed data, a direction and a magnitude of the turn; and
adjust the flow of the liquid product or the flow of the spreadable material based on the direction and magnitude of the turn (claims 14 and 10).
However, Kowalchuk teaches an applicator machine (Figs. 1-9), comprising: a frame (11); a hopper (21) mounted to the frame and configured to (capable of) hold and dispense a granule product (seed), wherein the hopper further includes one or more electronically controlled gates (31 or 89 and 92 of 31); a tank (41) configured to (capable of) hold a liquid product (45a and 45b); one or more electronically controlled (via 97) spray tips (of 51) configured to (capable of) dispense the liquid product; a spray pump (55 and 49) disposed between the tank and the one or more spray tips; an operator control interface (111) configured to (capable of) receive input from an operator (Col. 9, lines 7-15 and Col. 10, lines 13-15); a control (99 and 101) coupled to the operator control interface, the one or more electronically controlled gates, and the one or more electronically controlled spray tips. Kowalchuk further teaches wherein the control is further configured to (capable of) ground meter the flow of the liquid product or the flow of the granule product based on speed data (Col. 9, lines 16-31) (claims 12 and 19); wherein the speed data is obtained from one or more wheel speed sensors (tractor speed sensor or other speed indicator along with a GPS signal) disposed on (over) one or more drive wheels (Col. 9, lines 16-31) (claim 13) and wherein the control is further configured to (capable of): determine (by using tractor speed sensor or other speed indicator along with a GPS signal. Col. 9, lines 16-31), based on the speed data, whether the applicator machine is turning (in or out of the prescription map PM. Col. 9, line 22 or in or out of the TZ1 or TZ2. Col. 10, lines 13-41); determine, based on the speed data, a direction (in or out of the designated zones) and a magnitude (speed) of the turn; and adjust the flow of the liquid product or the flow of the granule product based on the direction and magnitude of the turn (claims 14 and 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of meter the spray and/or the spread based on the speed of the vehicle, as taught by Kowalchuk, to Doherty’s machine, in order to meter the pray and/or the spread based on the speed of the vehicle (Col. 9, lines 16-31).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Altin et al. (US 2017/0173610. Altin hereinafter).
With respect to claim 15, Doherty discloses the machine as in claim 1 except for wherein hopper further includes a material vibrator coupled to the control, wherein the control is further configured to activate the material vibrator when the one or more electronically controlled gates are open.
However, Altin teaches an applicator system (Figs. 1-18) with a hopper supply (102) to a spray applicator (20), wherein the hopper further includes a material vibrator (156) coupled to a control (39), wherein the control is further configured to (capable of) activate the material vibrator when the one or more electronically controlled gates (in 160) are open (paragraph [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a hopper’s material vibrator, as taught by Altin, to Doherty’s hopper, in order to assist in urging the material towards the lower corner of the hopper (paragraph [0055]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Steffen (US 4,052,003).
With respect to claim 18, Doherty discloses the machine as in claim 16 except for wherein a speed of the spray pump increases or decreases to hold a desired pressure through the feedback from a pressure transducer as the flow demand increases or decreased with an increase or decrease of ground speed.
However, Steffen teaches an applicator system (Figs. 1-7) with a vehicular sprayer, wherein a speed of the spray pump increases or decreases to hold a desired pressure through the feedback from a pressure transducer (370) as the flow demand increases or decreased with an increase or decrease of ground speed (Abstract lines 9-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of a pressure transducer, as taught by Steffen, to Doherty’s machine, in order to maintain desired pressure to a plurality of nozzles which dispense the liquid (Abstract lines 1-19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Doherty fails to disclose the operator control including a spreader calibration selection input to select one of the at least two different spread patterns and off and a sprayer calibration selection input to select one of the at least two different spray patterns and off; wherein at least one of the plurality of spreader options and the plurality of sprayer options is a user created option.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the newly amended limitation violates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph requirement. See detailed rejection above. Second, as elaborated above, Doherty disclose the operator control including a spreader calibration selection input (via knobs 86 (liquid can alternatively also be spread by means of a rotating disk. Col. 5, lines 57-58), 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 116) to select one of the at least two different spread patterns (Interpretation A: by the rotating disk and set of spray bars; Interpretation B: knobs 86, 88, 90, 93, 95, 96, 98, 100 and 116 are proportionally control knobs. Col. 9, lines 20-62. Therefore, the spread patterns can be 100%, 50% and 30%) and off and a sprayer calibration selection input to select one of the at least two different spray patterns and off; wherein at least one of the plurality of spreader options (switches and knobs that control the liquids in control box. Figs. 3-5) and the plurality of sprayer options (switches and knobs that control the granules in control box) is a user created option (same configuration as the Applicant’s invention).
The Applicant also argues that the use of a custom, user created calibration options is not taught in Doherty. Applicant's argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. No such limitations can be found in the claimed invention.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, Applicant raises no new issue. Applicant's arguments directed to claims rejected under the 35 U.S.C. 103 have been addressed in the section above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached on (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 October 9, 2025