DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 55-74 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 55 recites the limitation "AC" in line 6 of the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 58 contains the trademark/trade name Wi-Fi. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe how the microcomputer and remote computer communicate and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 58 recites the limitation "LAN" in line 7 of the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 58 recites the limitation "any one or more" in multiple locations of the claim. This language renders the claim indefinite as this language is all encompassing and attempting to claim all of a specific type of protocol or application. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 contains the trademark/trade name IBM, Windows, Linux, Chrome, and many others. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the protocol by which the microcomputer and remote computer communicate and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "VPN" among many other acronyms throughout the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 59 recites the limitation "any one or more" in multiple locations of the claim. This language renders the claim indefinite as this language is all encompassing and attempting to claim all of a specific type of protocol or application. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 60 recites the limitation "SD" throughout the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 61 recites the limitation "SD" throughout the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 62 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the protocol by how the microcomputer board communicates with the keyboard and mouse and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 63 recites the limitation "AC" throughout the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 64 contains the trademark/trade name Raspberry Pi, Orange Pi, Banana Pi, and many other. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the name which the microcomputer board is sold and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 65 recites the limitation "AC" throughout the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 68 contains the trademark/trade name Wi-Fi. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe how the microcomputer and remote computer communicate and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 68 recites the limitation "LAN" throughout the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 68 recites the limitation "any other remote computing means" and “any one or more of” in multiple locations of the claim. This language renders the claim indefinite as this language is all encompassing and attempting to claim all of a specific types of computing means. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 69 contains the trademark/trade name IBM, Windows, Linux, Chrome, and many others. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the protocol by which the microcomputer and remote computer communicate and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 69 recites the limitation "any one or more" in multiple locations of the claim. This language renders the claim indefinite as this language is all encompassing and attempting to claim all of a specific type of protocol or application. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 70 recites the limitation "SD" throughout the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 71 recites the limitation "SD" throughout the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 72 contains the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the protocol by how the microcomputer board communicates with the keyboard and mouse and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 73 recites the limitation "AC" throughout the claim. This acronym has not been properly defined within the claim language and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 74 contains the trademark/trade name Raspberry Pi, Orange Pi, Banana Pi, and many other. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the name which the microcomputer board is sold and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 55-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mulleris (WO 2006030109 (A1)).
Regarding Claim 55: Mulleris teaches a method for configuring a computer monitor as a minicomputer, the computer monitor comprising a housing (23 in figs. 1 and 4a-4c) defining a hollow interior region (figs. 1 and 4a-4c) and an open mouth (figs. 1 and 4a-4c) to the hollow interior region closed by a visual display screen (20 in figs. 1 and 4a-4c), a component tray (5) located within the hollow interior region (figs. 1 and 4a-4c), a screen controller (40) and a power supply (A1,A2) mounted on the component tray (figs. 1 and 4a-4c), the power supply being configured for producing a power supply to power the screen controller and the screen from a mains AC electricity power source (paragraph [0036] and [0040]), the method comprising mounting a microcomputer board (1) on the component tray (figs. 1 and 4a-4c) and configuring the microcomputer board to communicate wirelessly with at least one of a keyboard and a mouse (paragraph [0048]), and to communicate wirelessly with a remote computer (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claim 56: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board is configured to control the visual display screen through the screen controller (paragraph [0035]-[0036]), and preferably, the microcomputer board is located on the component tray (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c), so that at least one of the ports of the microcomputer board is accessible through the housing (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c).
Regarding Claim 57: Mulleris teaches in which the position of the screen controller on the component tray is altered to accommodate the microcomputer board thereon (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c) to provide access to the at least one of the ports of the microcomputer board through a port access opening (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c) originally formed in the housing to provide access to at least one port of the screen controller (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c).
Regarding Claim 58: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board is located on the component tray (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c) with the at least one of the ports thereof accessible through the port access opening in the housing (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c), and preferably, the port access opening in the housing is provided along a lower end of the housing (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c), and advantageously, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the remote computer over a telecommunications network (paragraph [0021]), and preferably, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the remote computer in any one or more of LAN or Wi-Fi (paragraph [0046]), and advantageously, the microcomputer board is Wi-Fi enabled (paragraph [0046]), and preferably, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the remote computer by broadband over a telecommunications network (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 59: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the remote computer (paragraph [0046]) in any one or more of the following protocols: Digital Signage, VPN, OpenVPN, HDX (Citrix JPG H.264), Horizon (VMWare BLAST PCoIP ), Media Player, NX (NoMachine), Performance Monitor, RDP (Microsoft RDP RemoteFX), SPICE, SSH, TN3270 (IBM), Telnet, User Defined(Bespoke), VNC, Web, X11 and IOT (Internet of Things) (the specific protocols are indefinite as per the 112 rejection above and the current limitations are rejected under the ability of the prior art to communicate over a protocol as taught in paragraph [0046]), and preferably, the remote computer with which the microcomputer board is configured to communicate comprises one or more of a remote main frame computer, a remote computer server, a remote desktop computer, a cloud computer (paragraph [0046]) and any other remote computing means, and advantageously, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with any one or more of the following screen sharing applications (the specific protocols are indefinite as per the 112 rejection above and the current limitations are rejected under the ability of the prior art to communicate over a protocol as taught in paragraph [0046]), namely, AnyDesk, Logmein, Splashtop, RDP, RDPfx, XfreeRDP, VNC, Chrome Remote Desktop, Join.me, Alpemix, Brosix, Jitsi, TeamViewer, Discord, Google Hangouts, Thinfinity Remote Desktop, and ThinLinx, and preferably, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with any one or more of cross platforms (paragraph [0046]), namely, Windows, Linux, Chrome OS and IOS (the specific protocols are indefinite as per the 112 rejection above and the current limitations are rejected under the ability of the prior art to communicate over a protocol as taught in paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 60: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board comprises a Micro SD Card receiver for receiving one of a plurality of Micro SD Cards (paragraph [0035]).
Regarding Claim 61: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board is configured so that when the Micro SD Card is located in the Micro SD Card receiver (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), the Micro SD Card acts as a hard drive for the microcomputer board (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and preferably, the communications mode of the microcomputer board is configured by the Micro SD Card located in the Micro SD Card receiver (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and advantageously, a Micro SD Card access opening is formed in the housing for accommodating a Micro SD Card therethrough for insertion in the Micro SD Card receiver of the microcomputer board (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and preferably, a closure element is provided for selectively closing the Micro SD Card access opening (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and advantageously, the closure element is operable between a closed state closing the Micro SD Card access opening (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and an open state providing access through the Micro SD Card access opening (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and preferably, the closure element is pivotally coupled on the housing, and is pivotal between the open state providing access through the Micro SD Card access opening and the closed state closing the Micro SD Card access opening (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and advantageously, the Micro SD Card access opening is located in the rear of the housing (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 62: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board is configured to communicate wirelessly with both the mouse and the keyboard (paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), and preferably, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the at least one of the mouse and the keyboard in a Bluetooth protocol (paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 63: Mulleris teaches in which a microcomputer board power supply (A1, A2) is located on the component tray (fig. 1) for providing a power supply to the microcomputer board from the mains AC electricity supply source (paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 64: 64. Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board comprises a microcomputer board sold (figs. 1, 3, 4a-4c) under any of the following trade names: Raspberry Pi, NanoPC-T4, Banana Pi R64, LattePanda Alpha 864, ODROID-XU4, Udoo x86 II, Ultra, ODROID-C1+, VoCore2, ASUS Tinker Board S, NVIDIA Jetson Nano Developer Kit, Onion Omega2+, ClockworkPi, Arduino Mega 2560, Rock64 Media Board, PocketBeagle, Le Potato, Banana Pi M64, Orange Pi Zero, VIM2 SBC by Khadas, NanoPi NEO2, Helios64 by Kobol and ODROID-HC2 (the specific tradename of the microcomputer board renders the claim indefinite as per the 112 rejections above wherein the microcomputer board is taught by the prior art shown in fig. 1)., and preferably, the microcomputer board comprises a microcomputer board sold under the trade name Raspberry Pi (the specific tradename of the microcomputer board renders the claim indefinite as per the 112 rejections above wherein the microcomputer board is taught by the prior art shown in fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 65: Mulleris teaches a minicomputer converted from a computer monitor by the method as claimed in Claim 55, the minicomputer comprising a computer monitor (20) comprising a housing (23) defining a hollow interior region (figs. 1, 3, and 4a-4c) and an open mouth to the hollow interior region (figs. 1, 3, and 4a-4c) closed by a visual display screen (figs. 1, 3, and 4a-4c), a component tray (5) located within the hollow interior region (figs. 1, 3, and 4a-4c), a screen controller (40) and a power supply (A1, A2) mounted on the component tray (figs. 1, 3, and 4a-4c), the power supply being configured for producing a power supply to power the screen controller and the screen (paragraph [0040]) from a mains AC electricity power source (paragraph [0040]), a microcomputer board located on the component tray (figs. 1, 3, and 4a-4c) and configured to communicate wirelessly with at least one of a keyboard and a mouse (paragraph [0048], and to communicate wirelessly with a remote computer (paragraph [0021].
Regarding Claim 66: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board is configured to control the visual display screen through the screen controller (paragraph [0035]-[0036]), and preferably, the microcomputer board is located on the component tray (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c), so that at least one of the ports of the microcomputer board is accessible through the housing (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c).
Regarding Claim 67: Mulleris teaches in Claim 65 in which the microcomputer board is configured to control the visual display screen through the screen controller (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]), and preferably, the microcomputer board is located on the component tray (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c), so that at least one of the ports of the microcomputer board is accessible through the housing (figs. 1, 3 and 4a-4c).
Regarding Claim 68: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the remote computer over a telecommunications network (paragraph [0021]), and advantageously, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the remote computer in a Wi-Fi protocol (paragraph [0046]), and preferably, the remote computer with which the microcomputer board is configured to communicate comprises one or more of a remote main frame computer, a remote computer server, a remote desktop computer, a cloud computer and any other remote computing means (paragraph [0046]), and advantageously, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the remote computer in any one or more of LAN or Wi-Fi (paragraph [0046]), and preferably, the microcomputer board is Wi-Fi enabled (paragraph [0046]), and advantageously, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the remote computer by broadband over a telecommunications network (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 69: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the remote computer in any one or more of the following protocols: Digital Signage, VPN, OpenVPN, HDX (Citrix JPG H.264), Horizon (VMWare BLAST PCoIP ), Media Player, NX (NoMachine), Performance Monitor, RDP (Microsoft RDP RemoteFX), SPICE, SSH, TN3270 (IBM), Telnet, User Defined(Bespoke), VNC, Web, X11 and IOT (Internet of Things) (the specific protocols are indefinite as per the 112 rejection above and the current limitations are rejected under the ability of the prior art to communicate over a protocol as taught in paragraph [0046]), and preferably, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with any one or more of the following common screen sharing applications, namely, AnyDesk, Logmein, Splashtop, RDP, RDPfx, XfreeRDP, VNC, Chrome Remote Desktop, Join.me, Alpemix, Brosix, Jitsi, TeamViewer, Discord, Google Hangouts, Thinfinity Remote Desktop and ThinLinx (the specific protocols are indefinite as per the 112 rejection above and the current limitations are rejected under the ability of the prior art to communicate over a protocol as taught in paragraph [0046]), and advantageously, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with any one or more of cross platforms, namely, Windows, Linux, Chrome OS and IOS (the specific protocols are indefinite as per the 112 rejection above and the current limitations are rejected under the ability of the prior art to communicate over a protocol as taught in paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 70: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board comprises a Micro SD Card receiver for receiving one of a plurality of Micro SD Cards (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 71: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board is configured so that when the Micro SD Card is located in the Micro SD Card receiver (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), the Micro SD Card acts as a hard drive for the microcomputer board (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and preferably, the communications mode of the microcomputer board is configured by the Micro SD Card located in the Micro SD Card receiver (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and advantageously, a Micro SD Card access opening is formed in the housing for accommodating a Micro SD Card therethrough for insertion in the microcomputer board (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and preferably, a closure element is provided for selectively closing the Micro SD Card access opening (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and advantageously, the closure element is operable between a closed state closing the Micro SD Card access opening, and an open state providing access through the Micro SD Card access opening (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and preferably, the closure element is pivotally coupled on the housing, and is pivotal between the open state providing access through the Micro SD Card access opening and the closed state closing the Micro SD Card access opening (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3), and advantageously, the Micro SD Card access opening is located in the rear of the housing (paragraph [0035] and figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 72: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board is configured to communicate wirelessly with both the mouse and the keyboard (paragraphs [0046]-[0048]), and preferably, the microcomputer board is configured to communicate with the at least one of the mouse and the keyboard in a Bluetooth protocol (paragraphs [0046]-[0048]).
Regarding Claim 73: Mulleris teaches in which a microcomputer board power supply is located on the component tray (fig. 1_ for providing a power supply to the microcomputer board from the mains AC electricity supply source (paragraphs [0040]).
Regarding Claim 74: Mulleris teaches in which the microcomputer board comprises a microcomputer board sold under any of the following trade names: Raspberry Pi, NanoPC-T4, Banana Pi R64, LattePanda Alpha 864, ODROID-XU4, Udoo x86 II, Ultra, ODROID-C1+, VoCore2, ASUS Tinker Board S, NVIDIA Jetson Nano Developer Kit, Onion Omega2+, ClockworkPi, Arduino Mega 2560, Rock64 Media Board, PocketBeagle, Le Potato, Banana Pi M64, Orange Pi Zero, VIM2 SBC by Khadas, NanoPi NEO2, Helios64 by Kobol and ODROID-HC2 (the specific tradename of the microcomputer board renders the claim indefinite as per the 112 rejections above wherein the microcomputer board is taught by the prior art shown in fig. 1)., and preferably, the microcomputer board comprises a Raspberry Pi microcomputer board (the specific tradename of the microcomputer board renders the claim indefinite as per the 112 rejections above wherein the microcomputer board is taught by the prior art shown in fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any other prior art cited in the Notice of References is related to the instant application in they teach similar remote systems including a display controlled through the interior components of the apparatus and having the capabilities to communicate over various forms of protocols and networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841