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 .
Claims 7-16, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration as set forth in the previous office action. Applicant made the election of Group 1, directed to the invention of a configurable storage container, traverse, in the response dated is acknowledged. Applicant assert that the election/restriction for lack of serious burden of search. The examiner submits: Withdrawn claim 7 directed to a lid with a plurality of polygon-shaped baffles, must be searched in B65D43/00-43/0222 amount to 9797 additional references to be considered.
Withdrawn claim 8, directed to a sealing material must be searched in B65D53/00-5306 amount to 2847 additional references to be considered.
Withdrawn claim 9, directed to vessel hasp, must be searched in E05B65/52 (Other locks for chests, boxes, trunks, baskets, travelling bags, or the like), amount to additional 1056 references to be considered.
Withdrawn claim 10, directed to double wall, must be searched in B65D25/00, 25/18, 11/16 (with double walls) amount to additional 3091 references to be considered.
Withdrawn claims 11-16, directed to a storage mating system, as broadly recited, must be searched in B25H3/00-3/028, b65d21/0204 amount to additional 6683 references to be considered.
Withdrawn claim 18, directed to a hinge stop, must be searched in the hinged area, b65d2251/10-2251/1091, amount to additional 2275 references to be considered.
Each additional feature in each additional claim, as set forth above add serious burdensome on the examiner.
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 following claimed features must be shown, without entering any new matter: the vessel protrusions are circular bin protrusions in claim 5 and the bin in polygon-shapes in claim 6. Fig. 8 only show drawings of bin of circular feet 209 in contact with polygonal 115 on the vessel in fig. 11.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montoli (5605167) in view of Berault (1030801).
PNG
media_image1.png
466
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
502
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Montoli teaches a configurable storage container system comprising a vessel (20), a lid (10), a hinge system, and an attachment interface, wherein: said vessel is comprised of: a substantially cuboid-shaped vessel body comprised of five sides, comprising a floor, a left side, a right side, a rear side and a front side (forming the bottom portion at 20). Each of said five sides has at least four edges forming a substantially rectangular overall shape and wherein said left side, said right side, said rear side, and said front side are all operatively attached along one of each said left right, rear and front side's said edges to one each of said floor's four edges, forming a substantially enclosed vessel, said lid is comprised of a substantially flat (see surface at 42 is flat) and substantially rectangular-shaped polygon having at least four edges and configured to substantially engage and enclose said vessel when placed atop said vessel, the hinge system comprised of a plurality of vessel hinge points along one edge of said rear side (at 41), a corresponding plurality of lid hinge points (see fig. 1) along one edge of said lid, at least one hinge pin configured to be inserted through said plurality of vessel hinge points and through said plurality of lid hinge points thus binding the two together in a hinged relationship, the attachment interface is integrated into said floor within said formed vessel and comprised of a plurality of protrusion groups forming a plurality of locking channels in each said protrusion group.
With respect to the limitation that “vessel protrusions are configured in a in a substantially cross-shaped pattern of no more than four protrusions in each group in a north, south, east, west formation”, note that
a) the claim recites “a plurality of protrusion groups” which requires only two protrusion groups,
b) the claim recites “comprised of” which does not exclude other protrusions, and
c) note there is no limit to the angular orientation and the vessel can be placed at various angular orientation. This is also evidence as implicitly argued by applicant in the drawing objection when applicant asserts that the circular protrusion 209 show the group recited in claim 1.
In this case, Denmead teaches at least two groups of protrusions configured in a in a substantially cross-shaped pattern of no more than four protrusions in each group in a north, south, east, west formation in as shown above in two groups forming a plurality of locking channels in each said protrusion group. Also, the claim does not exclude other protrusions.
Montoli teaches only one hinged point and not a plurality of lid hinge points. Berault teaches that it is known in the art to provide a plurality of lid hinge points on both side of the hinge. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a plurality of lid hinge points in Montoli to for added structure support and allow the pin to stray straight and not easy to bend.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Montoli teaches comprising at least one detachable storage bins (22 figs. 9-11), said storage bin comprising a bin body and a bin attachment interface, with the bin body is substantially cuboid-shaped and comprised of a plurality of sides, comprising a floor and at least one of a left side, a right side, a rear side and a front side and wherein and each of the least one sides has at least four edges forming a substantially rectangular overall shape; and each of said at least one sides are all operatively attached along one of each of said at least one sides' said edges to one each of said floor's four edges, forming a substantially enclosed bin said bin attachment interface comprising a plurality of bin protrusion groups integrated into said floor on the exterior of said detachable storage bin, each bin protrusion group comprising a plurality of bin protrusions (see fig. 11) in a substantially perpendicular orientation to said floor and wherein said bin protrusions are further configured in a pattern and number sufficient to frictionally engage said vessel protrusions of said vessel permitting the detachable affixation of the detachable storage bin to said storage container system.
Regarding claim 4, note the bin protrusions are substantially circular in shape.
Regarding claim 5, note the vessel protrusions are substantially circular in shape.
Claims 1-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montoli rejection, as set forth above in paragraph 4, and further in view of Brettingen (3487579) or Christiansen (3005282).
In the alternative to claim 1, to the degree it is argued that the claim requires the orientation of north sought east west to be align with the edge of the container, Brettingen or Christiansen (note the protrusion in fig. 11 with expanded rows), each teaches that it is known in the art to provide mating protrusions of cross-shaped pattern with the orientation of north sought east west to be align with the edge of the container.
PNG
media_image3.png
500
996
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(3) Toy elements of this kind will be referred to generally as building bricks, and the principal object of the invention is to provide improved coupling means for clamping such building bricks together in any desired relative position thus providing for a vast variety of combinations of the bricks for making toy structures of many different kinds and shapes.
These secondary projections are those of FIG. 11, which are designated by 25, cooperate with the primary projections 21 of an adjacent element in substantially the same manner as described with reference to the tubular projections of FIGS. 1-7.
PNG
media_image4.png
292
566
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(4) This invention relates to building blocks, and in par- ticular, to building blocks adapted to be interconnected in flush or staggered and overlapping positions and in selected angular relative relationship.
(6) Therefore, it is the primary object of this invention to provide building blocks which can be interconnected in aligned or laterally staggered and multiple predetermined angular overlapping relationships with accurate angular support.
Ordinary skill in the art:
Thus, any of the elements illustrated in FIGS. 2-11 may be combined with any other element in any desired relative position either by clamping one or more secondary projections of one element between four primary projections of the adjacent element or by clamping a pair of primary projections of one element between one secondary projection and the inner face of an end or side wall of the other element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide mating protrusions of cross-shaped pattern to provide an alternative mating protrusion structure to provide improved clamping structure for building blocks and/or to provide accurate latteral or angular support. Also, as set forth previously, there are at least two groups as required by the claim and the claim recites “comprised of” which does not exclude other protrusions.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montoli rejection, as set forth above in paragraph 4, and further in view of Lama (9345981). Lama teaches protrusions from the top can be either circular or square protrusions 256 for mating with circular studs similar in Montoli.
PNG
media_image5.png
604
422
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
400
435
media_image6.png
Greyscale
A cross section of the post can be a symmetrical geometrical shape, such as a circle or square that provides points of clutch for up to four different female coupling elements.
(52) In one example, the degree of an interference fit is sometimes referred to as “clutch.” The amount of clutch provides an indication of the forces needed to combine and/or separate the coupling elements to or from each other. The degree or amount of contact between the coupling elements when coupled directly correlates to the amount of clutch provided. In addition, the number of points of contact between the coupling elements can determine the amount of clutch. For example, there may be three, four, five or more points of contact between a male stud and female recess, wherein more points of contact provide more clutch. With regard to female coupling elements, the point of contact is referred to herein as a “point of clutch.” It is understood, that at “point of clutch” as used herein may refer to a point of contact, a line of contact, or an area of contact between two building elements.
In addition, a number of posts 256 extend orthogonally from the bottom surface 207 of the top. The center axis of each post 256 is parallel to the y axis. The width and length of the post 256 can be substantially equal forming a square cross section in the x-z plane having four corners (for example, each corner having a 90° angle). For example, the width and the length (being equal in a square cross section) of the post may be 0.82 mm. In another example, the post can have a circular cross section. The height of the post 256 corresponds to building type of building element (brick or plate) in which the post is formed. In this example, for a plate 200, the height of the post 256 is 1.8 mm. The end portion of the post (i.e., closest to opening of the cavity 214) may be slightly rounded or tapered to aid in alignment an insertion of a male stud into the corresponding female recess formed by the post.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the mating structure with the bin having polygonal shapes as taught by Lama to provide the desired clutching force (see above citation).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, note the bin is taught by the primary reference.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montoli rejection, as set forth above in paragraph 4, and further in view of Lange (3867784).
PNG
media_image7.png
127
150
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
536
579
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 6 Lange teaches at least two groups of protrusions configured in a in a substantially cross-shaped pattern of no more than four protrusions in each group in a north, south, east, west formation in as shown above in two groups forming a plurality of locking channels in each said protrusion group and in claim 6 with both the top and bottom having polygonal shapes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the mating structure with both the vessel and the bin having polygonal shapes (fig. 6) as taught by Lange to enable the angular fitting.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denmead (840558), or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denmead in view of Berault (1030801).
PNG
media_image9.png
425
937
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
737
1116
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
369
631
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Denmead teaches a configurable storage container system comprising a vessel (A), a lid (B), a hinge system, and an attachment interface, wherein: said vessel is comprised of: a substantially cuboid-shaped vessel body comprised of five sides, comprising a floor, a left side, a right side, a rear side and a front side (forming the bottom portion A). Each of said five sides has at least four edges forming a substantially rectangular overall shape and wherein said left side, said right side, said rear side, and said front side are all operatively attached along one of each said left right, rear and front side's said edges to one each of said floor's four edges, forming a substantially enclosed vessel, said lid is comprised of a substantially flat (see fig. 3) and substantially rectangular-shaped polygon having at least four edges and configured to substantially engage and enclose said vessel when placed atop said vessel, the hinge system comprised of a plurality of vessel hinge points along one edge of said rear side, a corresponding plurality of lid hinge points (see fig. 1) along one edge of said lid, at least one hinge pin configured to be inserted through said plurality of vessel hinge points and through said plurality of lid hinge points thus binding the two together in a hinged relationship, the attachment interface is integrated into said floor within said formed vessel and comprised of a plurality of protrusion groups forming a plurality of locking channels in each said protrusion group.
With respect to the new limitation that “vessel protrusions are configured in a in a substantially cross-shaped pattern of no more than four protrusions in each group in a north, south, east, west formation”, note that a) the claim recites “a plurality of protrusion groups” which requires only two protrusion groups, b) the claim recites “comprised of” which does not exclude other protrusions, and c) note there is no limit to the angular orientation and the vessel can be placed at various angular orientation. In this case, Denmead teaches at least two groups of protrusions configured in a in a substantially cross-shaped pattern of no more than four protrusions in each group in a north, south, east, west formation in as shown above in two groups forming a plurality of locking channels in each said protrusion group. Also, the claim does not exclude other protrusions.
With respect to the hinge pin, note that the hinge in Denmead inherently has a hinge pin since it is prior to the discovery of plastic and hinge are made of metal comprising a metal hinge pin. In the alternative,
PNG
media_image12.png
321
519
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Berault teaches that it is known in the art to provide hinge with a hinge pin (at 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a hinge with a hinge pin to provide an alternative hinge system and to manufacture the hinge easily.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sternberg (20100126814) in view of Newby, Sr. (6315154), or in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sternberg in view of Newby ‘154, and further in view of Brettingen (3487579) or Christiansen (3005282).
PNG
media_image13.png
912
920
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
730
949
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Sternberg teaches a configurable storage container system comprising a vessel (12), a lid (14), a hinge system (16), and an attachment interface. The vessel is comprised of: a substantially cuboid-shaped vessel body comprised of five sides, comprising a floor, a left side, a right side, a rear side and a front side (forming the vessel 12). Each of said five sides has at least four edges forming a substantially rectangular overall shape and wherein said left side, said right side, said rear side, and said front side are all operatively attached along one of each said left right, rear and front side's said edges to one each of said floor's four edges, forming a substantially enclosed vessel, said lid is comprised of a substantially flat (see fig. 5, exterior surface) and substantially rectangular-shaped polygon having at least four edges and configured to substantially engage and enclose said vessel when placed atop said vessel, the hinge system comprised of a plurality of vessel hinge points along one edge of said rear side, a corresponding plurality of lid hinge points along one edge of said lid, at least one hinge pin configured to be inserted through said plurality of vessel hinge points and through said plurality of lid hinge points thus binding the two together in a hinged relationship, the attachment interface is integrated into said floor within said formed vessel and comprised of a plurality of protrusion groups, each protrusion group comprising a plurality of vessel protrusions at (80) in a substantially perpendicular orientation to said floor (see fig. 4) and wherein said vessel protrusions are configured in a substantially cross-shaped pattern of four protrusions in each group in a north, south, east, west formation, forming a plurality of locking channels in each said protrusion group (see drawing above). Sternberg meets all claimed limitations except for the hinge pin, Newby teaches that it is known in the art to provide hinge pin 52. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide hinge pin as taught by Newby to enable the hinge of Sternberg to close and open the container easily.
PNG
media_image15.png
655
557
media_image15.png
Greyscale
In the alternative, Brettingen or Christiansen (note the protrusion in fig. 11 with expanded area coverage), each teaches that it is known in the art to provide mating protrusions of cross-shaped pattern.
PNG
media_image3.png
500
996
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(3) Toy elements of this kind will be referred to generally as building bricks, and the principal object of the invention is to provide improved coupling means for clamping such building bricks together in any desired relative position thus providing for a vast variety of combinations of the bricks for making toy structures of many different kinds and shapes.
These secondary projections are those of FIG. 11, which are designated by 25, cooperate with the primary projections 21 of an adjacent element in substantially the same manner as described with reference to the tubular projections of FIGS. 1-7.
PNG
media_image4.png
292
566
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(4) This invention relates to building blocks, and in par- ticular, to building blocks adapted to be interconnected in flush or staggered and overlapping positions and in selected angular relative relationship.
(6) Therefore, it is the primary object of this invention to provide building blocks which can be interconnected in aligned or laterally staggered and multiple predetermined angular overlapping relationships with accurate angular support.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide mating protrusions of cross-shaped pattern to provide an alternative mating protrusion structure to provide improved clamping structure for building blocks and/or to provide accurate lateral or angular support. Also, as set forth previously, there are at least two groups as required by the claim and the claim recites “comprised of” which does not exclude other protrusions.
Claims 2-6, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Sternberg rejections, as set forth above in paragraph 9, and further in view of Montoli (5605167). Sternberg does not teach the storage bin. Montoli teaches that it is known in the art to provide a plurality storage bins each with a floor and a plurality of sides and bin attachment interface of a plurality of bin protrusions substantially circular in shape (claim 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
502
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the containers in either Montoli in the container of Sternberg to store small contents.
Regarding claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide vessel protrusions of polygon shapes as taught by Brettingen or Christiansen provide improved clamping structure for building blocks and/or to provide accurate lateral or angular support.
Regarding claim 5, note the bin protrusions are substantially circular in shape in Sternberg and Montoli.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide bin protrusions of polygon shapes as taught by Christiansen to provide improved clamping structure for building blocks and/or to provide accurate lateral or angular support.
Regarding claim 17, note the bin attachment interface in Montoli comprising a plurality of bin protrusion groups integrated into said floor on the exterior of said detachable storage bin, each bin protrusion group comprising a plurality of bin protrusions in a substantially perpendicular orientation to said floor and wherein said bin protrusions are further configured in a pattern and number sufficient to frictionally engage said vessel protrusions of said vessel permitting the detachable affixation of said detachable storage bin to said storage container system.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the drawing objection, applicant is noted that 37CRF§ 1.83 (a) requires. The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
a) Note the disclosure shows different mating shapes for the protrusions of circular and polygonal in fig. 11. The claim requires the vessel protrusions are circular bin protrusions in claim 5 and the bin in polygon-shapes in claim 6. Fig. 8 only show drawings of bin of circular feet 209 in contact with polygonal 115 on the vessel in fig. 11.
b) The independent claim requires the protrusion in each group in a north, south, east, west formation. Fig. 11 shows only protrusions 115 which is polygonal, in this configuration. It seems applicant asserts that when the mating protrusions for the bin having the polygonal shapes 115, the four circular protrusions 209 to be on the vessel also arranged in a north, south, east, west formation (with no limit to the angular orientation and the vessel can be placed at various angular orientation).
Regarding the limitation “vessel protrusions are configured in a in a substantially cross-shaped pattern of no more than four protrusions in each group in a north, south, east, west formation”, note that
c) the claim recites “a plurality of protrusion groups” which requires only two protrusion groups,
c) the claim recites “comprised of” which does not exclude other protrusions, and
e) note that the various bins in fig. 8 also each adapted to be attached to more than four protrusions. Thus, the claim does not limit to four protrusions for the attachment of each of the bin.
d) note there is no limit to the angular orientation and the vessel can be placed at various angular orientation as implicitly argued by applicant in the drawing objection. In this case, Denmead, Brettingen and Christiansen, each teaches at least two groups of protrusions configured in a in a substantially cross-shaped pattern of no more than four protrusions in each group in a north, south, east, west formation in as shown above in two groups forming a plurality of locking channels in each said protrusion group. Also, the claim does not exclude other protrusions. With particular to Christiansen and Lange, note each separate group of protrusions each group in a north, south, east, west formation in the same manner as applicant’s, i.e., each group has no other protrusions.
Applicant broadly asserts that the applied references of Montoli, Sternberg does not teach the claimed “cross shape” group. As set forth above, the claimed “cross shaped” group, as interpreted by applicant via the drawing objection, i.e., the circular shape formed the protrusions 209 similar to that of “Lego” protrusions also comprises the claimed “cross shaped” with “no more than four protrusions in each group in a north, south, east, west formation” in claim 1. The examiner submits in each of the “Lego” protrusions in Montoli, Sternberg, each has a cross shaped” with “no more than four protrusions in each group in a north, south, east, west formation
PNG
media_image14.png
730
949
media_image14.png
Greyscale
The claim recites “comprised of” which does not exclude other protrusions. Regarding other 103 rejection, applicant asserts that the claimed particular shape is a utilitarian design. Applicant is noted of the numerous motivation reasons offered by the applied protrusions.
Brettingen:
Therefore, it is the primary object of this invention to provide building blocks which can be interconnected in aligned or laterally staggered and multiple predetermined angular overlapping relationships with accurate angular support.
Christiansen ‘282:
Other cross sections may, however, be used as shown in FIGS. 9 and 10, where the secondary projections are cross-shaped, or they may have any other symmetrical cross section provided that the contour of the cross section is shaped so as to contact the circular cross sections of four primary projections as shown by way of example in FIGURE 11. The secondary projections may be provided with longitudinal slits 18, as shown in FIGS.) 8, 10 and "11, to increase the clamping effect of said projections, when interlocked with four primary projections of an adjacent brick.
Thus, any of the elements illustrated in FIGS. 2-11 may be combined with any other element in any desired relative position either by clamping one or more secondary projections of one element between four primary projections of the adjacent element or by clamping a pair of primary projections of one element between one secondary projection and the inner face of an end or side wall of the other element.
Lange ‘784:
(2) The proposed toy bricks can be joined together at angles of 45.degree.. Moreover, their superstructures also interfit. This permits attractive variations to be introduced into the construction of a building from a number of toy bricks.
Also note Christiansen teaches that one of ordinary in the art that the different protrusions are combinable with any other element in any desired position.
The examiner submits that each of the applied reference teaches claimed cross shape with north south east west protrusions and the different shape offers unique reasons as explicitly spelled out in each applied reference. Also, note that one of ordinary in the art would recognize that the mating of various shapes including the claimed cross shape is within one of ordinary skill in the art. Note that to the degree it is argued that the “Lego” type shape is not the claimed cross shape, there is no differences between applicant’s cross shape and the shape offered by the prior art of record, and the skill to applied one shape for another, in this case from a “Lego” type shape to the claimed cross shape is clearly within one or ordinary skill in the art.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRI M MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-4541. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Mon-Friday).
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on (571) 270-5055. 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.
TRI M. MAI
Examiner
Art Unit 3733
/TRI M MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733