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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, in the submission dated 08/21/2025, are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1-5, 10, 11-12, 14-15 are amended. Claims 9 and 13 are cancelled by the applicant. Claim 21 is added without the addition of new matter. Claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-21 are pending. The rejection of claims 2, 5, 12, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to 2, 5, 12, and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 , 8, 10-11, 14-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gothard US Patent 4,709,657 (hereinafter, “Gothard”) in view of Chen et al. US Patent 9,810,882 B2 (of record, see Office action dated 04/21/2025, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Gothard discloses an optical lens for magnifying (refer to abstract disclosing a magnifying lens) a reflection in a mirror (the magnifying lens disclosed by Gothard is capable of being attached to a mirror), the optical lens comprising:
a surface located on a first side of the optical lens (Fig. 2, lens 13 is depicted from a top perspective displaying a first side of the optical lens, refer to at least col. 2 lines 43-49); and
a convex surface located on a second side of the optical lens opposite the first side (Fig. 2, lens 13 is depicted from a top perspective displaying a convex surface on a second side of the optical lens, refer to at least col. 2 lines 43-49),
an optical axis of the optical lens being formed along a central portion of the surface and a central portion of the convex surface (though Gothard does not explicitly disclose an optical axis for lens 13, lenses inherently possess optical axes in that there must be a geometric center for any and all lenses through which an optical axis is defined to pass, therefore lens 13 must possess an optical axis, and as a consequence of the geometry of lens 13 depicted in at least Fig. 2, the optical axis of lens 13 would pass through the central portion thereof, satisfying the limitation as recited),
the surface having a first radius of curvature and the convex surface having a second radius of curvature (Fig. 2, lens 13 is depicted from a top perspective displaying two surfaces, refer to at least col. 2 lines 43-49, therefore each surface must have a radius of curvature defining the optical properties of lens 13), and
at least an outer portion of the surface being self-adherable to a mirror and the central portion of the surface lacks being self-adherable to the mirror (Figs. 1-2, a plurality of suction cups 15 connected to frame 14, where frame 14 is on the outer portion of the surface of lens 13, and frame 14 with suction cups 15 hold lens 13 to face 11, col. 2, lines 43-49, where face 11 could be a mirror, and Figs. 1-2 show no suction cups 15 in the central portion of lens 13),
wherein, when at least the outer portion of the surface is self-adhered to the mirror, light passes through the central portion of the surface unobstructed by any self-adherable material, and the optical lens is configured to magnify mirror images viewed through the optical lens and the mirror (Figs. 1-2, lens 13 is adhered to face 11 by suction cups 15 on the outer portion, and light passes through the central portion of lens 13 unobstructed by any self-adherable material).
Gothard does not disclose conical surfaces for lens 13, nor does Gothard disclose a concave surface of lens 13, and Gothard is silent as to the radius of curvature of the surfaces of lens 13, and therefore Gothard does not disclose a second radius of curvature of lens 13 is greater in magnitude than the first radius of curvature of lens 13.
In a related field of invention, Chen discloses an optical lens L2 with surfaces S3 and S4 that are aspheric (Chen, col. 4, lines 4-7, see Fig. 1 thereof), with Chen in Table I providing parameters for the aspheric equation disclosed in col. 4 lines 15-20 for lens L2, including coefficient K that is a conic constant, where the values for K are non-zero, indicating the lens surface is a section of a conical surface. Furthermore, Chen teaches lens L2 has a radius of curvature for surface S3 of 6.562 mm, and a radius of curvature for surface S4 of 2.217 mm, refer to Table I. Therefore, Chen discloses an optical lens L2 with conical concave and conical convex surfaces as shown in at least Fig. 1 thereof, and Chen discloses the conical concave surface S4 of lens L2 having a first radius of curvature and the conical convex surface S3 of lens L2 having a second radius of curvature greater in magnitude than the first radius of curvature. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Chen to the disclosure of Gothard and used a lens such as lens L2 taught by Chen for lens 13 of Gothard, for providing better image quality (Chen, col. 1, lines 29-30).
Regarding amended dependent claim 2, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 1, and Gothard further discloses wherein at least the outer portion of the conical concave surface is formed of suction material configured to self-adhere to the mirror (Gothard Figs. 1-2, a plurality of suction cups 15 connected to frame 14, where frame 14 is on the outer portion of the surface of lens 13, and frame 14 with suction cups 15 hold lens 13 to face 11, col. 2, lines 43-49, where face 11 could be a mirror, and Figs. 1-2 show no suction cups 15 in the central portion of lens 13).
Regarding amended dependent claim 3, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 1, and Chen further discloses wherein the optical lens is formed of at least one of optical grade plastic material, high refractive index material, high-plastic material, or polycarbonate material (Chen discloses plastic lenses, col. 3, lines 55-66).
Regarding amended dependent claim 4, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 1, and Gothard further discloses wherein the optical lens is formed of pliable suction cup material configured to enable at least the outer portion of the conical concave surface to self-adhere to the mirror (Gothard discloses suction cups 15 attached to frame 14 holding lens 13, see Figs. 1-2, enabling the outer portion of the magnifying lens to adhere to face 11).
Regarding amended dependent claim 5, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 1, wherein, when at least the outer portion of the conical concave surface is self-adhered to the mirror (Gothard shows suction cups 15 on frame 14 are on the outer portion of lens 13 in at least Figs. 1-2), at least the outer portion of the conical concave surface self-adheres flush to the mirror (Gothard shows suction cups 15 on frame 14 are adhered to face 11 in at least Figs. 1-2) with an air gap located in between the mirror and the central portion of the conical concave surface (Gothard in at least Fig. 2 shows an air gap between lens 13 and face 11).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 1, and Gothard further discloses the optical lens further comprising a frame positioned around perimeters of the conical concave surface and the conical convex surface, the frame being formed of material different from a material of which the conical concave surface and conical convex surface are formed (Gothard discloses frame 14 that is positioned around the perimeter of lens 13, see at least Figs. 1-2, where frame 14 may be wood, metal, or rubber, col. 3, lines 13-16).
Regarding amended dependent claim 10, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 1, wherein a shape of the optical lens viewed along the optical axis is at least one of circular, oval, rectangular, or square (Gothard discloses the shape of the lens 13 may be circular, oval, square, rectangular, or any other shape desired, col. 3, lines 10-13).
Regarding amended independent claim 11, Gothard discloses an apparatus for magnifying (refer to abstract disclosing a magnifying lens) a reflection in a mirror (the magnifying lens disclosed by Gothard is capable of being attached to a mirror), the apparatus comprising:
an optical lens (Fig. 1, lens 13, col. 2, lines 43-44) comprising:
a surface located on a first side of the optical lens (Fig. 2, lens 13 is depicted from a top perspective displaying a first side of the optical lens, refer to at least col. 2 lines 43-49), and
a convex surface located on a second side of the optical lens opposite the first side (Fig. 2, lens 13 is depicted from a top perspective displaying a convex surface on a second side of the optical lens, refer to at least col. 2 lines 43-49),
an optical axis of the optical lens being formed along a central portion of the conical concave surface and a central portion of the conical convex surface (though Gothard does not explicitly disclose an optical axis for lens 13, lenses inherently possess optical axes in that there must be a geometric center for any and all lenses through which an optical axis is defined to pass, therefore lens 13 must possess an optical axis, and as a consequence of the geometry of lens 13 depicted in at least Fig. 2, the optical axis of lens 13 would pass through the central portion thereof, satisfying the limitation as recited),
the conical concave surface having a first radius of curvature and the conical convex surface having a second radius of curvature (Fig. 2, lens 13 is depicted from a top perspective displaying two surfaces, refer to at least col. 2 lines 43-49, therefore each surface must have a radius of curvature defining the optical properties of lens 13); and
an adhesive material affixed to at least an outer portion of the surface and the central portion of the surface lacks being self-adherable to the mirror causing at least the outer portion of the surface to be self-adherable to a mirror, wherein, when at least the outer portion of the surface is self-adhered to the mirror, light passes through the central portion of the surface unobstructed by any self-adherable material, and the optical lens is configured to magnify mirror images viewed through the optical lens and the mirror (Figs. 1-2, lens 13 is adhered to face 11 by suction cups 15 on the outer portion, and light passes through the central portion of lens 13 unobstructed by any self-adherable material).
Gothard does not disclose conical surfaces for the lens 13, and does not disclose a conical concave surface for lens 13, and Gothard does not disclose a second radius of curvature greater in magnitude than the first radius of curvature.
In a related field of invention, Chen discloses an optical lens L2 with surfaces S3 and S4 that are aspheric (Chen, col. 4, lines 4-7, see Fig. 1 thereof), with Chen in Table I providing parameters for the aspheric equation disclosed in col. 4 lines 15-20 for lens L2, including coefficient K that is a conic constant, where the values for K are non-zero, indicating the lens surface is a section of a conical surface. Furthermore, Chen teaches lens L2 has a radius of curvature for surface S3 of 6.562 mm, and a radius of curvature for surface S4 of 2.217 mm, refer to Table I. Therefore, Chen discloses an optical lens L2 with conical concave and conical convex surfaces as shown in at least Fig. 1 thereof, and Chen discloses the conical concave surface S4 of lens L2 having a first radius of curvature and the conical convex surface S3 of lens L2 having a second radius of curvature greater in magnitude than the first radius of curvature. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Chen to the disclosure of Gothard and used a lens such as lens L2 taught by Chen for lens 13 of Gothard, for providing better image quality (Chen, col. 1, lines 29-30).
Regarding amended dependent claim 14, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 11, and Chen further discloses wherein the optical lens is formed of at least one of optical grade plastic material, high refractive index material, high-plastic material, or polycarbonate material (Chen discloses plastic lenses, col. 3, lines 55-66).
Regarding amended dependent claim 15, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 11, wherein, when at least the outer portion of the conical concave surface is self-adhered to the mirror (Gothard shows suction cups 15 on frame 14 are on the outer portion of lens 13 in at least Figs. 1-2), at least the outer portion of the conical concave surface self-adheres flush to the mirror (Gothard shows suction cups 15 on frame 14 are adhered to face 11 in at least Figs. 1-2) with an air gap located in between the mirror and the central portion of the conical concave surface (Gothard in at least Fig. 2 shows an air gap between lens 13 and face 11).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 11, and Gothard further discloses the optical lens further comprising a frame positioned around a perimeter of the optical lens, the frame being formed of material different from a material of which the optical lens is formed (Gothard discloses frame 14 that is positioned around the perimeter of lens 13, see at least Figs. 1-2, where frame 14 may be wood, metal, or rubber, col. 3, lines 13-16).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the conical concave surface has a first conical constant and the conical convex surface has a second conical constant greater in magnitude than the first conical constant (Chen in Table II discloses convex surface S3 of lens L2 has conic coefficient K = -2.0381E+01, i.e., -2.0381, and concave surface S4 of lens L2 has conic constant K = -6.7805E-01, i.e., -0.67805, and because -2.0381 is further from zero, and therefore greater in magnitude than -0.67805, the convex surface S3 has a conic coefficient that satisfies the instant condition).
Regarding amended dependent claim 20, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein a shape of the optical lens viewed along the optical axis is at least one of circular, oval, rectangular, or square (Gothard discloses the shape of the lens 13 may be circular, oval, square, rectangular, or any other shape desired, col. 3, lines 10-13).
Regarding new dependent claim 21, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 1, wherein: the conical concave surface has a first conical constant and the conical convex surface has a second conical constant greater in magnitude than the first conical constant ((Chen in Table II discloses convex surface S3 of lens L2 has conic coefficient K = -2.0381E+01, i.e., -2.0381, and concave surface S4 of lens L2 has conic constant K = -6.7805E-01, i.e., -0.67805, and because -2.0381 is further from zero, and therefore greater in magnitude than -0.67805, the convex surface S3 has a conic coefficient that satisfies the instant condition).), equation (1) determines z(r), which represents a z-component of a displacement from the conical concave surface to a vertex of a circle associated with a shape of the optical lens, or a displacement from the conical convex surface to the vertex, at a radial distance r from an optical axis:
z
r
=
c
r
2
1
+
1
-
1
+
k
c
2
r
2
(1)
c represents a curvature, which is a reciprocal of a radius, r represents a radial coordinate in millimeters, and k represents a conic constant (Chen discloses equation 1 in col. 4, lines 4-20, where Z is a coordinate value on the optical axis OA, K is a coefficient of quadratic surface, and c is the reciprocal of r in which r is the curvature radius).
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gothard in view of Chen as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Auer US Patent 2,532,877 A (hereinafter, “Auer”).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 1, and Gothard further discloses the optical lens further comprising an edge adjoining perimeters of the conical concave surface and the conical convex surface (Gothard, Fig. 2 shows lens 13 with an edge adjoining perimeters of the two surfaces of the lens, and Gothard in view of Chen discloses the surfaces of lens 13 are conical concave and conical convex surfaces).
The prior art combination does not disclose a beveled edge adjoining perimeters of the conical concave surface and the conical convex surface. Therefore, the prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the edge adjoining perimeters of the conical concave surface and the conical convex surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to bevel the edge adjoining the perimeters of the conical concave and conical convex surfaces of lens 13, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(V)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because the edges of lens 13 will be adjoined regardless of the shape of the edge, and a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to add a bevel to an edge of lens 13 either for safety or for aesthetics. Furthermore, aesthetic design changes relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, refer to MPEP 2144.01(1), In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
In the same field of invention, Auer discloses magnifying glasses, shown in Figs. 1-3 thereof, with an edge 12 that is beveled as shown in Fig. 2, refer to col. 1 lines 29-36. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Auer to the disclosure of Gothard and included a beveled edge on lens 13, either for securing lens 13 in the frame 14, or for aesthetics, as the prior art teaches a beveled edge of a lens is possible and feasible.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the optical lens further comprises a edge adjoining perimeters of the conical concave surface and the conical convex surface.
The prior art combination does not disclose a beveled edge adjoining perimeters of the conical concave surface and the conical convex surface. Therefore, the prior art and the instant claim differ by the shape of the edge adjoining perimeters of the conical concave surface and the conical convex surface. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to bevel the edge adjoining the perimeters of the conical concave and conical convex surfaces of lens 13, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(V)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because the edges of lens 13 will be adjoined regardless of the shape of the edge, and a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to add a bevel to an edge of lens 13 either for safety or for aesthetics. Furthermore, aesthetic design changes relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, refer to MPEP 2144.01(1), In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
In the same field of invention, Auer discloses magnifying glasses, shown in Figs. 1-3 thereof, with an edge 12 that is beveled as shown in Fig. 2, refer to col. 1 lines 29-36. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Auer to the disclosure of Gothard and included a beveled edge on lens 13, either for securing lens 13 in the frame 14, or for aesthetics, as the prior art teaches a beveled edge of a lens is possible and feasible.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gothard in view of Chen as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Dufour US Patent 4,838,674 (hereinafter, “Dufour”).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the optical lens of claim 1, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature are configured to yield an optical power for the optical lens (Chen discloses optical lens L2 with radiuses of curvature for surface S3 of 6.562 mm, and for surface S4 of 2.217 mm, refer to Table I, therefore lens L2 has a focal length of -6.5238 mm as calculated from the parameters provided in Table I, therefore lens L2 has an optical power).
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose the optical lens has an optical power in a range from 0.25 to 3 diopters (Chen discloses optical lens L2 with a focal length of -6.5238 mm as calculated from the parameters provided in Table I, which, when converted to diopters for comparison to the claimed range, is 153 D).
In a related field of invention, Dufour discloses a family of lenses with powers between 0.5 and 3.5 diopters (refer to col. 5, lines 46-49 thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Dufour to the disclosure of Gothard and used a lens with optical power ranging from 0.5 diopters to 3.5 diopters, as lens 13, to provide a magnifying lens that is available in a variety of refractive powers and provides visual comfort (Dufour, col. 2, lines 9-13, and col. 6, lines 54-63).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature are configured to yield an optical power for the optical lens (Chen discloses optical lens L2 with radiuses of curvature for surface S3 of 6.562 mm, and for surface S4 of 2.217 mm, refer to Table I, therefore lens L2 has a focal length of -6.5238 mm as calculated from the parameters provided in Table I, therefore lens L2 has an optical power).
The prior art combination does not explicitly disclose the optical lens has an optical power in a range from 0.25 to 3 diopters (Chen discloses optical lens L2 with a focal length of -6.5238 mm as calculated from the parameters provided in Table I, which, when converted to diopters for comparison to the claimed range, is 153 D).
In a related field of invention, Dufour discloses a family of lenses with powers between 0.5 and 3.5 diopters (refer to col. 5, lines 46-49 thereof). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Dufour to the disclosure of Gothard and used a lens with optical power ranging from 0.5 diopters to 3.5 diopters, as lens 13, to provide a magnifying lens that is available in a variety of refractive powers and provides visual comfort (Dufour, col. 2, lines 9-13, and col. 6, lines 54-63).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gothard in view of Chen as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Zadro US Patent 8,905,560 B1 (of record, see Office action dated 04/21/2025, hereinafter “Zadro”).
Regarding amended dependent claim 12, Gothard in view of Chen discloses the apparatus of claim 11, and Gothard further discloses wherein the adhesive material comprises suction material configured to self-adhere to the mirror (Gothard Figs. 1-2, a plurality of suction cups 15 connected to frame 14, where frame 14 is on the outer portion of the surface of lens 13, and frame 14 with suction cups 15 hold lens 13 to face 11, col. 2, lines 43-49).
The prior art combination does not disclose the suction material being different from a material of which the optical lens is formed (Gothard is silent as to the material for suction cups 15 and lens 13).
In the same field of invention, Zadro discloses a magnifying spot mirror that is releasably attachable, wherein the adhesive material comprises micro-suction material configured to self-adhere to the mirror, the micro-suction material being different from a material of which the optical lens is formed (Zadro teaches each suction cup 31 is made of a soft elastomeric material such as a silicone rubber and is releasably conformable to a flat surface such as vertical mirror M, see at least Fig. 7, and refer to col. 4 lines 56-61, and Chen teaches eyeglass lens blanks may be made of a variety of optical glass or plastic materials, refer to at least col. 5 lines 19-42, therefore the prior art combination teaches different materials for the adhesive material and the lens material).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Zadro to the disclosure of Gothard and used a soft elastomeric material for suction cups 15 to provide cushioning and protection for lens 13 and face 11 (Zadro, col. 6, lines 8-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 10-12, and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
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 Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872