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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB1910443.9, filed on 07/22/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 08/20/2025. The examiner notes the following adjustments to the claims by the applicant: (i) Claims 1, 7 and 8 are amended; and (ii) Claims 5-6 are cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-4 and 7-18 are pending examination, in which Claim 1 is an independent claim.
In light of the instant amendments and arguments, further examination resulted in a new rejection of Claims 1-4 and 7-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as detailed below.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
To overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection, the applicant has amended the independent claim to include the additional underlined limitations: "defining,interface, one or more mower-safe subregions where a robotic mower can safely be allowed to traverse under its own control; automatically assigning a no-cutting attribute to a portion of a mower-safe region…wherein the step of controlling the robotic lawn mower comprises controlling the robotic lawn mower to: traverse a first portion of a mower-safe subregion, the first portion assigned with a cutting attribute, while cutting; traverse from the first portion to a second portion of the mower-safe subregion, the second portion assigned with a no-cutting attribute; traverse the second portion of the mower-safe subregion, without cutting; traverse from the second portion to a subsequent portion of the mower-safe subregion, the subsequent portion assigned with a cutting attribute; and; traverse the subsequent portion of the mower-safe subregion, while cutting.";
“amended claim 1 requires that the second portion is a portion of a mower-safe subregion, and that the mower-safe subregions are defined within the boundary, and not outside the boundary. Said another way, if the area of confinement of Letsky is interpreted as reading on the boundary defined in claim 1, the area "outside the defined area of confinement" as described in Letsky could not be a mower-safe subregion as defined in claim 1.”;
“In summary, among other deficiencies, Letsky does not allow mower-safe subregions with a no-cutting attribute. As a consequence, Letsky does not address crossing driveways within the defined area of confinement. Instead, Letsky delineates only between lawns (mower-safe areas) and exclusion zones (not-mower safe areas). The Office Action has not pointed to any teaching, suggestion, or disclosure in Letsky that the mower would cease cutting while crossing a driveway. Rather, under Letsky's delineation, to cease mower cutting on a driveway would require the driveway to become an exclusion zone, in which case the mower would not cross it. In contrast, using the invention of amended claim 1, driveways and pedestrian paths between lawn islands can be crossed safely with the blades being turned off.”.
Applicant's arguments A., B. and C. appear to be directed to the instantly amended subject matter. Accordingly, they have been addressed in the rejections below.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Letsky (US 8,706,297 B2) and Balutis et al. (US 9,538,702 B2), henceforth Balutis.
Regarding Claim 1, Letsky discloses the limitations: a method of controlling a robotic lawn mower {“Referring briefly to FIG. 13, the housing 201 contains all of the internal circuitry and mechanical systems necessary to operate the autonomous robot 200. Specifically, the housing 201 contains a robot control system 230 that contains all of the required internal circuitry.”, Col. 6, Lns. 11-13}, comprising the steps: obtaining an overhead image of a plot of land {“the area of confinement 520 is mapped by the CPU 535 using a mapping scheme such that a closed geometry area of confinement 520 is generated as a map. In certain embodiments, upon defining the area of confinement 520 and transmitting the area of confinement 520 to the server 400, the server 400 will overlay the area of confinement 520 onto a satellite image of the geographic location that has been defined as the area of confinement 520.”, Col. 25, Lns. 17-24}; defining a boundary of the plot of land {“The various modes of the autonomous robot 200 include a Setup/Perimeter Mapping Mode 110, an Exclusion Area Mode, a Pattern Selection Mode 140 and an Operational Mode 150.”, Col. 9, Lns. 64-67} using a graphical user interface {“the user can manipulate the perimeter of the area of confinement 520 via the external device to more accurately depict the corners and other changes in geometry/shape of the perimeter of the area of confinement 520. In certain embodiments, this includes the user logging in to the website and manipulating the area of confinement 520.”, Col., 26, Lns. 4-9}; defining, within the boundary using the graphical user interface, one or more mower-safe subregions {area of confinement or work area boundary 220, Fig. 11, minus the exclusion areas: “the robot control system 230 can also store exclusion information…the user can define exclusion Zones, or portions within the defined area of confinement 220 that the user does not want the autonomous robot 200 to travel (e.g., trees, decks, flower beds, playground equipment).”, Col. 13, Lns. 32-41, and “Robot control system 230 may use the boundary information, robot dimensions (cutting width), and exclusion information to generate a grid or map that indicates where the autonomous robot 200 should travel, should not travel or has already traveled.”, Col. 13, Lns. 22-26}; assigning a control attribute to a mower-safe subregion {cutting pattern, Col. 25, Lns. 57-64}; the robotic lawn mower {200, Fig. 1} to traverse the plot of land while its operation in a subregion is based on (a) the location of the mower in relation to the plot of land, (b) the defined boundary and one or more subregions and (c) the assigned control attribute {“After the area of confinement 520 has been properly mapped and stored, the user can log in to the website to select the desired operation pattern, including lines/stripes, random, circular, spiral, user-defined or the like. In certain embodiments, the user can log into the website and create a user-defined pattern by selecting points within the area of confinement 520”, Col. 25, Lns. 57-64, “autonomous robot 200 is within the area of confinement 220 and is at least a first distance from the perimeter of the area of confinement 220.”, Col. 28, Lns. 1-3, and “the CPU 235 will also reduce the velocity of the autonomous robot 200 at step 606 to ensure that the autonomous robot 200 is effectively cutting the thick grass.”, Col. 31, Lns. 52-55}.
Letsky does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: defining, within the boundary using the graphical user interface, one or more mower-safe subregions where a robotic mower can safely be allowed to traverse under its own control; automatically assigning a no-cutting attribute to a portion of a mower-safe region, wherein the step of controlling the robotic lawn mower comprises controlling the robotic lawn mower to: traverse a first portion of a mower-safe subregion, the first portion assigned with a cutting attribute, while cutting; traverse from the first portion to a second portion of the mower-safe subregion, the second portion assigned with a no-cutting attribute - traverse the second portion of the mower-safe subregion, without cutting; traverse from the second portion to a subsequent portion of the mower-safe subregion, the subsequent portion assigned with a cutting attribute; and traverse the subsequent portion of the mower-safe subregion, while cutting.
However, Balutis explicitly recites the limitation: defining, within the boundary using the graphical user interface, one or more mower-safe subregions where a robotic mower can safely be allowed to traverse under its own control {Figs. 2 and 7A-7B, show a large property 100 that includes “three discontiguous lawn areas 102a-c.” (Col. 6, Lns. 65-66), a concrete walkway 115 and a rocky area 117, all of which are traversable by lawn mowing robot 10}; automatically assigning a no-cutting attribute to a portion of a mower-safe region {“A method of mowing multiple areas includes training the robotic mower to move across a space separating at least two areas, and initiating a mowing operation.”, Abstract}, wherein the step of controlling the robotic lawn mower comprises controlling the robotic lawn mower to: traverse a first portion of a mower-safe subregion, the first portion assigned with a cutting attribute, while cutting {with regard to Fig. 7A, lawn mowing route 1900a in lawn area 102a}; traverse from the first portion to a second portion of the mower-safe subregion {with regard to Fig. 7A, passing from lawn area 102a to 102b via traversal route 1500, which involves movement over concrete walkway 115}, the second portion assigned with a no-cutting attribute {“The cutting system is decoupled from the drive system such that the robot can deactivate the cutting system while the drive system is running. For example, while the robot follows traversal routes across the traversal regions between the lawn areas, the robot can deactivate the cutting system.” Col. 3, Ln. 65 to Col. 4, Ln. 3}; traverse the second portion of the mower-safe subregion, without cutting {“The robot can be programmed to move along bypass routes across the lawn areas with the cutting system deactivated so that the robot can reach a target lawn area without mowing the lawn areas that are in between the location of the robot and the target lawn area.”, Col. 4, Lns. 9-13}; traverse from the second portion to a subsequent portion of the mower-safe subregion {lawn area 102b, Fig. 7A}, the subsequent portion assigned with a cutting attribute; and traverse the subsequent portion of the mower-safe subregion, while cutting {with regard to Fig. 7A, lawn mowing route 1900b in lawn area 102b; “a method of mowing multiple areas separated by a space. The method includes training a robotic mower to mow the areas, including moving the robotic mower about the areas…The method further includes training the robotic mower to move across the space separating the areas…Initiating a mowing operation causes the robotic mower to autonomously, and in sequence: mow the first of the areas, move to the traversal launch point, move from the traversal launch point across the space to the traversal landing point, and then mow the second of the areas.”, Col. 1, Lns. 25-36}.
Letsky and Balutis are analogous art because they both deal with robotic mowing of lawns.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Letsky and Balutis before them, to modify the teachings of Letsky to include the teachings of Balutis to limit mower operation to property areas with grass and enable movement, without cutting, to an adjacent, but non-connected, mowable area {Col. 1, Lns. 25-36}.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Letsky explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the control attribute comprises a cutting attribute {“After the area of confinement 520 has been properly mapped and stored, the user can log in to the website to select the desired operation pattern, including lines/stripes, random, circular, spiral, user-defined or the like. In certain embodiments, the user can log into the website and create a user-defined pattern by selecting points within the area of confinement 520”, Col. 25, Lns. 57-64}.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, as discussed supra. In addition, Letsky explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the cutting attribute is selected from a group consisting of: cutting-height, cutting-time, cutting-frequency and cutting-pattern {“After the area of confinement 520 has been properly mapped and stored, the user can log in to the website to select the desired operation pattern, including lines/stripes, random, circular, spiral, user-defined or the like. In certain embodiments, the user can log into the website and create a user-defined pattern by selecting points within the area of confinement 520”, Col. 25, Lns. 57-64}.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Letsky explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising: the step of defining one or more danger-zone subregions within the boundary {“the robot control system 230 can also store exclusion information for use in directing the autonomous robot 200. In some embodiments, in order to input exclusion information into the robot control system 230, the user sets the device to the Exclusion Area Mode by activating a manual, internal or electronic Switch. In this mode, the user can define exclusion Zones, or portions within the defined area of confinement 220 that the user does not want the autonomous robot 200 to travel (e.g., trees, decks, flower beds, playground equipment).”, Col. 13, Lns. 32-41} using the graphical user interface {“the user can manipulate the perimeter of the area of confinement 520 via the external device to more accurately depict the corners and other changes in geometry/shape of the perimeter of the area of confinement 520. In certain embodiments, this includes the user logging in to the website and manipulating the area of confinement 520.”, Col., 26, Lns. 4-9}.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Letsky does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the step of controlling the robotic lawn mower comprises generating a route in the first and subsequent portion of the mower-safe subregion to minimize time or distance traversing the second portion of the mower-safe subregion
However, Balutis explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the step of controlling the robotic lawn mower comprises generating a route in the first and subsequent portion of the mower-safe subregion {1500, Fig. 7A} to minimize time or distance traversing the second portion of the mower-safe subregion {“Referring to FIG. 5A, the controller determines and stores the shortest traversable route between a source boundary (the boundary 106 a) and a destination boundary (the boundary 106 b). The robot 10 can identify the shortest traversable route in various ways. For example, the robot can identify locations where the robot is able to drive between one area and the other (e.g., determine regions free of obstacles). Given a grid-based representation of the lawn as described earlier, a path planning algorithm such as A*, rapidly exploring random trees (RRTs), or probabilistic roadmaps can then be used to find the shortest path from the robot's current location to the destination.”, Col. 12, Lns.47-58}.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Letsky does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: wherein the step of controlling the robotic lawn mower comprises generating a route to minimize number of times the first or subsequent portions of the mower-safe subregion are crossed by the robotic lawn mower.
However, Balutis explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the step of controlling the robotic lawn mower comprises generating a route to minimize number of times the first or subsequent portions of the mower-safe subregion are crossed by the robotic lawn mower to minimize time or distance traversing the second portion of the mower-safe subregion {the “shortest traversable route” strategy described in Col. 12, Lns.47-58, is reflected in Fig. 5A as the shortest overall path to mow both areas 102a and 102b (i.e., 1900a and 1900b, respectively) and to traverse (1500) between the lawn areas}.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. Letsky does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: further comprising detecting a barrier obstructing the robotic lawn mower's traversal across a mower-safe subregion using the robotic lawn mower when traversing the plot of land and automatically generating a mowing route between the obstructed areas of the subregion via a portion of a mower-safe subregion that is assigned with a no-cutting attribute.
However, Balutis explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising detecting a barrier obstructing the robotic lawn mower's traversal across a mower-safe subregion using the robotic lawn mower {“a floral divider 116 within the concrete walkway 115”, Col. 7, Lns. 8-9 and Fig. 2} when traversing the plot of land {“the sensor system 650 includes an obstacle sensing system 657 that further includes the proximity sensors 680 disposed on the lateral sides of the robot 10 such that the robot can detect when it has made contact with a physical barrier or when it is in close proximity to a physical barrier.”, Col. 5, Lns. 38-43, and “using proximity sensors 680 disposed on the front portion of the robot 10, the controller 1000 can determine when the robot is about to collide with an obstacle and communicate instructions to the navigation system 700 and the drive system 600 to avoid the obstacle.”, Col. 5, Lns. 25-29} and automatically generating a mowing route between the obstructed areas of the subregion via a portion of a mower-safe subregion that is assigned with a no-cutting attribute {“Referring to FIG. 5A, the controller determines and stores the shortest traversable route between a source boundary (the boundary 106 a) and a destination boundary (the boundary 106 b). The robot 10 can identify the shortest traversable route in various ways. For example, the robot can identify locations where the robot is able to drive between one area and the other (e.g., determine regions free of obstacles). Given a grid-based representation of the lawn as described earlier, a path planning algorithm such as A*, rapidly exploring random trees (RRTs), or probabilistic roadmaps can then be used to find the shortest path from the robot's current location to the destination.”, Col. 12, Lns.47-58}.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Letsky explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising recording sensor measurements using the robotic lawn mower when traversing the plot of land and updating a control attribute based on the sensor measurements {“Although FIG. 12 illustrates the robot control system 230 recording four coordinates around the perimeter, in this embodiment the robot control system 230 is actually constantly recording the coordinates to the internal memory 233 so that the perimeter 220 can be mapped on an XY plane”, Col. 10, Lns. 3-7, and “The autonomous robot 200 preferably tracks and records its location with the use of the compass 231 and the timer 232. The compass 231, which is located within the autonomous robot 200 and is operably coupled to the CPU 235, provides a direction/bearing for the movement of the autonomous robot 200 at all times.”, Col. 10, Lns. 47-52}.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Letsky explicitly recites the limitation: wherein the step of defining a boundary of the plot of land using the graphical user interface comprises limiting the area of the boundary based on robotic mower capabilities {“the robot control system 230 is able to detect when the autonomous robot 200 has completed its task or has a low battery. The robot control system 230 is constantly aware of the location of the autonomous robot 200 within the defined area of confinement 220 by coordinates or other map ping techniques as discussed above. As such, the robot control system 230 is able to prevent the autonomous robot 200 from leaving the defined area of confinement 220 and guide the autonomous robot 200 to other area of confinements and back to the point Po. For example, the robot control system 230 may direct the autonomous robot 200 to return to the docking station 300 for docking or recharging and then direct the autonomous robot 200 back to the point Po.”, Col. 14, Lns. 27-39; in addition, one skilled in the art will appreciate that matching battery capacity to the distance a robot is capable of traveling on a single charge is well known}.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Letsky explicitly recites the limitation: further comprising the step of determining an optimal charging point for a robotic lawn mower based on the defined boundary and subregions {docking station 300, Fig. 12, and “An opening 302 is provided in the housing 301 through which the autonomous robot 200 can pass into the housing 301 for shelter, storage and/or charging during periods of non-use”, Col. 7, Lns. 19-22}.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Letsky explicitly recites the limitation: a computer program comprising computer readable instructions {“the CPU 235 can include pre-stored algorithms”, Col. 6, Lns. 40-41; “The memory device 533 can include pre-stored algorithms that provide the CPU 535 with instructions”, Col. 16, Lns. 63-65} which, when run on suitable computer apparatus, cause the computer apparatus {“the robot control system 230 includes a compass 231, a timer 232, an internal memory 233, a wireless signal transceiver 234, a vision system 238, and a power source 243, all of which are operably connected to a central processing unit (CPU) 235”, Col. 6, Lns. 16-20} to perform the method of claim 1 {see Claim 1}.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 15, as discussed supra. In addition, Letsky explicitly recites the limitation: a computer program product comprising the computer program {“The memory device 533 can include pre-stored algorithms that provide the CPU 535 with instructions”, Col. 16, Lns. 63-65} of claim 15 {see Claim 15}.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Letsky explicitly recites the limitation: an apparatus {200, Fig. 1} specifically adapted to carry out the steps of the method of controlling a robotic lawn mower according to Claim 1 {see Claim 1}, the apparatus being configured as a robotic lawn mower {“autonomous robot 200…contains a robot control system 230 that contains all of the required internal circuitry…..all of which are operably connected to a central processing unit (CPU) 235.”, Col. 6, Lns. 13-20}.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. In addition, Letsky explicitly recites the limitation: a system comprising a robotic lawn mower {200, Fig. 1} and a processing unit configured to control a robotic lawn mower {“autonomous robot 200…contains a robot control system 230 that contains all of the required internal circuitry…..all of which are operably connected to a central processing unit (CPU) 235.”, Col. 6, Lns. 13-20} according to the method of Claim 1 {see Claim 1}.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Letsky, Balutis and Johnson et al. (US 8,744,626 B2), henceforth Johnson.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Letsky and Balutis does not appear to explicitly recite the limitations: comprising the step of deploying different robotic lawn mowers to different subregions based on properties of the subregions and the assigned control attributes of the subregions.
However, Johnson explicitly recites limitations: comprising the step of deploying different robotic lawn mowers to different subregions based on properties of the subregions and the assigned control attributes of the subregions {“In some illustrative embodiments, number of worksite areas 120 may not be physically adjacent to each other, and number of nodes 126 may be used to guide a number of autonomous machines 104 from one worksite area to another worksite area across an obstacle, such as a sidewalk or driveway for example.”, Col. 5, Lns. 5-10}.
The combination of Letsky and Balutis along with Johnson are analogous art because they deal with managing the operation of an autonomous vehicle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Letsky, Balutis and Johnson before them, to modify the teachings of the combination of Letsky and Balutis to include the teachings of Johnson to enhance workload efficiency by simultaneously perform multiple landscaping tasks {Abstract}.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Letsky and Balutis discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, as discussed supra. The combination of Letsky and Balutis does not appear to explicitly recite the limitation: comprising the step of deploying different numbers of robotic lawn mowers to different subregions based on properties of the subregions and the assigned control attributes of the subregions.
However, Johnson explicitly recites limitation: comprising the step of deploying different numbers of robotic lawn mowers to different subregions based on properties of the subregions and the assigned control attributes of the subregions {“In some illustrative embodiments, number of worksite areas 120 may not be physically adjacent to each other, and number of nodes 126 may be used to guide a number of autonomous machines 104 from one worksite area to another worksite area across an obstacle, such as a sidewalk or driveway for example.”, Col. 5, Lns. 5-10}.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 RICHARD EDWIN GEIST whose telephone number is (703)756-5854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-6pm.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/R.E.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665