DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
Current Application
Application No. 17/987,787
Claim 1
An apparatus comprising:
at least one electrode element having a skin-facing surface;
a layer of anisotropic material having a skin-facing surface and an opposing outwardly facing surface;
and a skin contact layer comprising a conductive adhesive composite, wherein the at least one electrode element is in electrical contact with the outwardly facing surface of the layer of anisotropic material, and wherein the skin contact layer is disposed on a skin-facing side of the layer of anisotropic material.
Claim 1
An apparatus comprising:
at least one electrode element having a skin-facing surface;
a layer of anisotropic material having a skin-facing surface and an opposing outwardly facing surface;
a first layer of non-hydrogel conductive adhesive positioned between the skin-facing surface of the at least one electrode element and the outwardly facing surface of the layer of anisotropic material; a skin contact layer comprising a biocompatible conductive adhesive, wherein the skin contact layer is disposed on a skin-facing side of the layer of anisotropic material; wherein the first layer of non-hydrogel conductive adhesive facilitates electrical contact between the skin-facing surface of the at least one electrode element and the outwardly facing surface of the layer of anisotropic material
Claim 2
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the conductive adhesive composite comprises:
a dielectric material; and conductive particles dispersed within the dielectric material.
Claim 6
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first layer of non-hydrogel conductive adhesive comprises:
a dielectric material; and conductive particles dispersed within the dielectric material.
Claim 4
The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the conductive particles comprise graphite powder, carbon flakes, carbon granules, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanowires, or carbon black powder, or combination thereof.
Claim 8
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the conductive particles comprise carbon flakes, carbon granules, carbon nanotubes, single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, carbon black powder, graphite powder, carbon nanowires, carbon microcoils, or any combination thereof.
Claims 1,2, and 4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6,8, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 17/987,787. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same electrode structure to be used for the same purpose, just using different language. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8 and 20 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. Claims 8 and 20 claim “the skin contact layer is disposed on the skin-facing surface of the layer of anisotropic material”. This is patentably indistinct from the sections of claims 1 and 9 that state “the skin contact layer is disposed on the skin-facing side of the layer of anisotropic material” 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.
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.
Claim 10 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. Claim 10 uses relative language for the description of the ranges for the thickness of adhesive layers in the electrode assembly stating that it ranges from “about 40 micrometers to about 70 micrometers”. Using the term “about” introduces uncertainty regarding the metes and bounds of the claim and should therefore a simple correction to overcome the rejection could be to not include the term “about”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1,5,and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Der Beek, et al (US 20130066412 A1); hereinafter Van Der Beek.
Regarding claim 1, Van Der Beek teaches an apparatus comprising at least one electrode element having a skin-facing surface (conductive layer 74); a layer of anisotropic material (current spreader 36 distributes electrical signals in an anisotropic manner) having a skin-facing surface and an opposing outwardly facing surface (fig 12); and a skin contact layer comprising a conductive adhesive composite (34 conductive gel that may include adhesive layer) , wherein the at least one electrode element is in electrical contact with the outwardly facing surface of the layer of anisotropic material (Skin contact layer 34 is disposed on a skin facing side of the layer of anisotropic material 36) , and wherein the skin contact layer (34) is disposed on a skin-facing side of the layer of anisotropic material (36).
Regarding claim 5, Van Der Beek teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Van Der Beek further teaches the layer of anisotropic material is a synthetic graphite ([0030] layer 36 is made of conductive polymers, graphitized cloth or wire mesh).
Regarding claim 8, Van Der Beek teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Van Der Beek further teaches the skin contact layer is disposed on the skin-facing surface of the layer of anisotropic material (figures 12,14).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Beek further in view of Burnham, et al (US9947432B2); hereinafter Burnham. Van Der Beek teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Van Der Beek fails to explicitly teach that the conductive adhesive composite comprises a dielectric material and conductive particles dispersed within the dielectric material. Burnham teaches conductive adhesive composites for body electrodes (electrically conductive composite) that comprise a dielectric material (first dielectric material) and conductive particles dispersed within it (second conductive material that is substantially dispersed within the first dielectric material) (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Van Der Beek with the teachings of Burnham because it constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The generic conductive adhesive composite of Van Der Beek achieves the same result of having an adhesive, biocompatible material that is electrically conductive that the more specific embodiment of Burnham teaches.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Der Beek and Burnham and further in view of Kim et al (US 20200190372 A1); hereinafter Kim. The combination of Van Der Beek and Burnham teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The combination of Van Der Beek and Burnham fails to explicitly disclose that the dielectric material is a polymeric adhesive. Kim discloses that the dielectric material is a polymeric adhesive (abstract – polymer matrix). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention that the most reasonable choice for the dielectric material would be a polymeric adhesive because it would have been obvious to try (Rationale E MPEP 2143 (I)) as it choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. There are very limited dielectric materials that are capable of having conductive particles dispersed within it that are biocompatible for use on the skin and also have the appropriate form factor for a skin electrode. Using a polymer based adhesive also has a reasonable expectation of success because most skin electrodes already use hydrogels and the like with polymer matrices.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Der Beek and Burnham and further in view of El-Kady et al (US 10982119 B2); hereinafter El-Kady. The combination of Van Der Beek and Burnham teaches the apparatus of claim 2. The combination of Van Der Beek and Burnham fails to teach that the conductive particles comprise one of graphite powder, carbon flakes, carbon granules, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanowires, or carbon black powder, or combination thereof. El-Kady teaches that the conductive particles comprises graphite powder, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, or carbon black powder (column 16 lines 12-18). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Van Der Beek with the teachings of El-Kady because it constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 Rationale B). El-Kady substitutes the generic conductive particles of Burnham with a specific embodiment including graphite powder, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, or carbon black powder that fulfills the same purpose of conducting electricity through a dielectric adhesive material.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Beek and further in view of Krol et al (US 4137477 A); hereinafter Krol. Van Der Beek discloses the apparatus according to claim 1. Van Der Beek teaches that the anisotropic layer (36) is made of graphitized cloth or wire mesh, however, Van Der Beek fails to disclose that the anisotropic material is one of a sheet of pyrolytic graphite, graphitized polymer film, or graphite foil made from compressed high purity exfoliated mineral graphite. Krol discloses that the layer of anisotropic material is a sheet of pyrolytic graphite (column 1 lines 50-55). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Van Der Beek with the teachings of Krol because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Krol discloses that “an important characteristic feature of the layers of pyrolytic graphite is a pronounced anisotropy of the physical properties in which the anisotropy of the electrical and the thermal conductivity is very favourable for the application in grid electrodes” (column 1 lines 50-55).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Beek as they are obvious but not anticipated from the teachings of Van Der Beek. Van Der Beek teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Van Der Beek fails to teach that upper adhesive layer also comprises the conductive adhesive composite. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Van Der Beek to also make the upper adhesive layer comprise the conductive adhesive composite as this constitutes mere duplication of parts of which there is no patentable significance as there is no new and unexpected result (MPEP 2144 duplication of parts). The conductive adhesive composite claimed in claim 1 has the result of creating electrical contact between two elements while also adhering them together. Using the conductive adhesive composite on the upper adhesive layer has the same expected result.
Claim(s) 9,11-13, and 17,19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Beek and further in view of Carim et al (US2005015134A1); hereinafter Carim.
Regarding claim 9, Van Der Beek teaches an apparatus comprising at least one electrode element having a skin-facing surface (conductive layer 74); a layer of anisotropic material (current spreader 36 distributes electrical signals in an anisotropic manner) having a skin-facing surface and an opposing outwardly facing surface (skin facing and outwardly facing figure 12); and a skin contact structure having: an outer adhesive layer comprising conductive adhesive composite (outwardly facing side of layer 34); and an inner adhesive layer comprising conductive adhesive composite (skin-facing side layer 34). Van Der Beek further teaches that the at least one electrode element (electrode element 74) is in electrical contact with the outwardly facing surface of the layer of anisotropic material (36), wherein the outer adhesive layer of the skin contact structure is disposed on a skin- facing side (skin-facing side of 34) of the layer of anisotropic material, and wherein the inner adhesive layer of the skin contact structure is configured to contact skin of a subject (skin contact). Van Der Beek fails to teach a substrate between the inner and outer adhesive layers. Carim teaches a substrate positioned between the inner and outer adhesive layers ([0036] embedded scrim or other structures/layers to further counter edge effects). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Van Der Beek with the teachings of Carim because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention (MPEP 2143 Rationale G). Carim discloses that “by providing a larger electrolyte layer 40, edge effects associated with current distribution at the outer perimeter 26 of the conductive polymeric sheet 20 and undercoating 30 may be dissipated” and “an embedded scrim or other structures/layers…further counter edge effects” ([0036]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Carim further teaches the substrate of the skin contact structure has a continuous, uninterrupted structure (figures 1 and 2, substrate can be an uninterrupted layer [0036]), and wherein the substrate of the skin contact structure is electrically conductive ([0036] conductive polymeric sheet).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Carim further teaches the substrate of the skin contact structure has an at least partially open structure that is configured to permit flow of adhesive between the inner and outer adhesive layers of the skin contact structure ([0036] scrim structure is open by definition).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Carim further discloses the substrate of the skin contact structure comprises a mesh or a scrim ([0036] scrim).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Van Der Beek further teaches the layer of anisotropic material is a synthetic graphite ([0030] layer 36 graphitized cloth).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim teaches the apparatus of claim 9. The combination of Van Der Beek and Carim fails to teach that upper adhesive layer also comprises the conductive adhesive composite, However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim to also make the upper adhesive layer also comprise the conductive adhesive composite as this constitutes mere duplication of parts of which there is no patentable significance as there is no new and unexpected result (MPEP 2144 duplication of parts). The conductive adhesive composite claimed in claim 9 has the result of creating electrical contact between two elements while also adhering them together. Using the conductive adhesive composite on the upper adhesive layer has the same expected result.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Van Der Beek further teaches the outer adhesive layer of the skin contact structure is disposed on a skin- facing side (skin-facing side of 34) of the layer of anisotropic material (figures 12,14).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim and further in view of Gunasekar et al (WO 2019108968 A1); hereinafter Gunasekar. The combination of Van Der Beek and Carim teaches the apparatus of claim 9. The combination of Van Der Beek and Carim fails to teach a range of thickness of the inner and outer adhesive layers. Gunasekar teaches the thickness of the inner adhesive layer ranges from about 40 µm to about 75 µm ([0030] 0.05mm/50µm to 2.5mm/2500 µm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim such that the thickness of the inner adhesive layer ranges from about 40 µm to about 75 µm and the thickness of the outer adhesive layer ranges from about 40 µm to about 75 µm in light of Gunasekar, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. See MPEP 2144.05. The result is obvious because one skilled in the art would have expected the claimed range and prior art range to have the same or similar properties.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim further in view of Burnham. The combination of Van Der Beek and Carim teaches the apparatus of claim 9. The combination of Van Der Beek and Carim fails to explicitly teach that the conductive adhesive composite comprises a dielectric material and conductive particles dispersed within the dielectric material. Burnham teaches conductive adhesive composites for body electrodes (electrically conductive composite) that comprise a dielectric material (first dielectric material) and conductive particles dispersed within it (second conductive material that is substantially dispersed within the first dielectric material) (Abstract). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim with the teachings of Burnham because it constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The generic conductive adhesive composite of Van Der Beek achieves the same result of having an adhesive, biocompatible material that is electrically conductive that the more specific embodiment of Burnham teaches.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Der Beek, Carim, and Burnham and further in view of El-Kady. The combination of Van Der Beek, Carim, and Burnham teaches the apparatus of claim 14. The combination of Van Der Beek, Carim, and Burnham fails to teach that the conductive particles comprise one of graphite powder, carbon flakes, carbon granules, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanowires, or carbon black powder, or combination thereof. El-Kady teaches that the conductive particles comprises graphite powder, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, or carbon black powder (column 16 lines 12-18). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Van Der Beek, Carim, and Burnham with the teachings of El-Kady because it constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 Rationale B). El-Kady substitutes the generic conductive particles of Burnham with a specific embodiment including graphite powder, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, or carbon black powder that fulfills the same purpose of conducting electricity through a dielectric adhesive material.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Der Beek, Carim, and Burnham and further in view of Kim. The combination of Van Der Beek, Carim, and Burnham teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Van Der Beek, Carim, and Burnham fails to explicitly disclose that the dielectric material is a polymeric adhesive. Kim discloses that the dielectric material is a polymeric adhesive (abstract – polymer matrix). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention that the most reasonable choice for the dielectric material would be a polymeric adhesive because it would have been obvious to try (Rationale E MPEP 2143 (I)) as it choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. There are very limited dielectric materials that are capable of having conductive particles dispersed within it that are biocompatible for use on the skin and also have the appropriate form factor for a skin electrode. Using a polymer based adhesive also has a reasonable expectation of success because most skin electrodes already use hydrogels and the like with polymer matrices.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim and further in view of Krol. The combination of Van Der Beek and Carim teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Van Der Beek teaches that the anisotropic layer (36) is made of graphitized cloth or wire mesh, however, the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim fails to disclose that the anisotropic material is one of a sheet of pyrolytic graphite, graphitized polymer film, or graphite foil made from compressed high purity exfoliated mineral graphite. Krol discloses that the layer of anisotropic material is a sheet of pyrolytic graphite (column 1 lines 50-55). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Van Der Beek and Carim with the teachings of Krol because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Krol discloses that “an important characteristic feature of the layers of pyrolytic graphite is a pronounced anisotropy of the physical properties in which the anisotropy of the electrical and the thermal conductivity is very favourable for the application in grid electrodes” (column 1 lines 50-55).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dhrasti SNEHAL Dalal whose telephone number is (571)272-0780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm, Alternate Friday off, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brandy Lee can be reached on (571) 270-7410. 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.
/D.S.D./Examiner, Art Unit 4145
/SEAN W COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794