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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/18/2022 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it lacks a signature from the Applicant or an Attorney of Record. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2: delete the term “port” after “outlet” for clarity.
Claims 2-16, line 1: add the term “the” before “apparatus” for clarity.
Claim 4, line 2: un-italicize the term “adapted.”
Claim 7, line 1: add “a” before “curved baffle” for clarity.
Claim 7, line 2: add “to” before “said air inlet” for clarity.
Claim 10, line 2: change the term “UV” to “UVC” for clarity.
Claim 14, line 2: change the term “member” to “pipe” for clarity.
Claim 14, line 4: change the term “member” to “pipe” for clarity.
Claim 15, line 1: add the term “is” before “mounted” for clarity.
Claim 23, line 2: delete the extra space after “panel.”
Claim 26, line 2: add the term “a” before “curved baffle” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation is: “curved baffle means” in claim 26.
Because this claim limitation is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, the curved baffle means will be understood to cover the corresponding baffles as described in the specification (page 14, para 1-2) and equivalents thereof under broadest reasonable interpretation.
If applicant intends to have this limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 6 and 14 are 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 6 recites the limitation "air inlet nozzle" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the floor" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested the Applicant amend the claim to recite “near the floor of a room” to cure the antecedent basis issue.
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, 7, 10-11, 14, 16, 22, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Engelhard (US 20170080373) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/18/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Engelhard teaches an air purifier apparatus ([0002], Fig. 1, system 100) comprising:
(a) a UVC treatment chamber having an air inlet and an air outlet port ([0006], [0072-0073], Fig. 6, reaction chamber 1112 with inlet 1101, outlet 1104)
(b) an ultraviolet (UVC) light source within said chamber ([0060], UV source 1122 emits at 254 nm which is well known in the art to be within the UVC spectrum [0077]);
(c) a fan for moving ambient air through said air inlet, through said chamber, and outwardly through said air outlet ([0006], [0059], fan 1108);
wherein said chamber includes reflective interior surfaces for reflecting UV light along multiple pathways within said chamber to sterilize air moving therethrough between said air inlet and said air outlet ([0059-0060], second radial louver 1114 = reflective surface);
wherein said air inlet and said air outlet are adapted to prevent UVC light from escaping from said chamber [0060].
Regarding claim 7, Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, further comprising curved baffle within said chamber adjacent said air inlet for imparting spiral flow to air entering into said chamber (Fig. 6 and 11, radial louver1110 is adjacent to the air inlet for providing spiral flow [0065, 0073] = understood to be a curved baffle).
Regarding claim 10, Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, further comprising a photocatalyst panel positioned between said air inlet and said UV light source (Fig. 1, catalyst panel 108 [0035-0037], Fig. 6, radial louver 1110 also coated with photocatalyst [0059], ).
Regarding claim 11, Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 11, wherein said air inlet includes a filter (Fig. 1, filter 106 [0035-0037]).
Regarding claim 14, Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein said air outlet comprises a tubular pipe supporting said chamber (Fig. 7, air outlet 1104 comprises a tubular pipe supporting reaction chamber 1112); wherein said tubular member includes a base having at least one opening for treated air to exit the tubular member near the floor (pipe has a base, and air outlet has a nozzle to direct exhaust [0096] = understood to be able to discharge air near the floor wherever the apparatus is deployed as near is a relative term).
Regarding claim 16, Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein said chamber is configured to provide a free vortex air flow path from said air inlet to said air outlet (Fig. 6, air initially moves in a spiral fashion around reaction chamber due to motive force from fan 1108 but is understood to continue to rotate due to its own inertia after encountering the force of the fan = free vortex flow).
Regarding claim 22, Engelhard teaches a method for purifying air ([0002], [0048]) comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a chamber having an air inlet and an air outlet (Fig. 6, [0006], [0072-0073], reaction chamber 1112);
(b) providing an ultraviolet (UV) light source within said chamber ([0060], UV source 1122);
(c) providing a fan for moving ambient air through said air inlet, through said chamber and through said air outlet ([0006], [0059], fan 1108);
wherein said chamber includes reflective interior surfaces for reflecting UV light along multiple pathways within said chamber to sterilize air moving therethrough between said air inlet and said air outlet ([0059-0060], second radial louver 1114 = reflective surface);
wherein said air inlet and said air outlet are adapted to prevent UV light from escaping from said chamber [0060].
Regarding claim 26, Engelhard teaches the method in accordance with claim 22, wherein said chamber further comprises curved baffle means adjacent said air inlet for imparting spiral flow to air entering said chamber (Fig. 6 and 11, radial louver 1110 adjacent to the air inlet for providing spiral flow [0065, 0073] = understood to be a curved baffle).
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) 6, 8, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhard (US 20170080373) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/18/2022).
Regarding claim 6, Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the apparatus includes an air inlet nozzle [0096] but does not teach wherein the air inlet nozzle is oriented at a right angle to the UV light source.
Engelhard contemplates further embodiments of the air purification system wherein the air inlet nozzle can be directionally changeable for providing a wider range of inlet directionality [0096]. Because the air inlet nozzle can be directionally changeable, it would be well within the purview of one having ordinary skill to change the angle of the inlet nozzle to any desired angle to intake air from a specific location in a given space the system is placed in or optimize sterilization of the air by controlling the inlet flow dynamics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the directionally changeable air inlet nozzle as taught by Engelhard to be oriented at a right angle to the UV light source to provide an optimal inlet directionality [0096] and inlet air flow dynamics.
Regarding claim 8, Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, including an air inlet nozzle that is directionally changeable [0096] but does not teach wherein there are a plurality of air inlet nozzles.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Engelhard to include a plurality of air inlet nozzles to increase the amount of inlet air flow and ensure an optimal volume of air can be sterilized by the apparatus and this involves the duplication of parts which has already been found to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B).
Regarding claim 25, Engelhard teaches the method in accordance with claim 22 including an air inlet nozzle [0096], but does not explicitly teach wherein an air inlet comprises a nozzle oriented at a right angle to the UV light source.
Engelhard contemplates further embodiments of the air purification system and method wherein the air inlet can include a directionally changeable nozzle for providing a wider range of inlet directionality [0096]. Because the air inlet nozzle can be directionally changeable, it would be well within the purview of one having ordinary skill to change the angle of the inlet nozzle to any desired angle to intake air from a specific location in a given space the system is placed in or optimize sterilization of the air by controlling the inlet flow dynamics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the directionally changeable air inlet nozzle as taught by Engelhard to be oriented at a right angle to the UV light source to provide an optimal inlet directionality [0096] and inlet air flow dynamics.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhard (US 20170080373) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/18/2022) in view of Denkewicz (US 20160122208) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/18/2022).
Regarding claim 2, Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the air inlet comprises a perforated panel adapted to reflect UV light into the UV chamber.
Denkewicz teaches a combined ultraviolet light and ozone fluid sterilization system [abstract] comprising a reflective sleeve (Fig. 8, 58, [0032]) surrounding an annular fluid chamber. Denkewicz further teaches wherein the reflective sleeve is perforated, formed of reflective PTFE, and configured to reflect UV light [0032-0034] into the fluid flowing through the annular chamber.
Denkewicz and Engelhard are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to fluid sterilization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air inlet as taught by Engelhard to include the perforated sleeve as taught by Denkewicz since Denkewicz teaches the sleeve to increase uniformity of the UV treatment [0009] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 2, wherein said perforated panel comprises PTFE (Denkewicz, [0032]).
Regarding claim 23, Engelhard teaches the method in accordance with claim 22 but does not teach wherein the air inlet comprises a perforated panel adapted to reflect UV light into the UV chamber.
Denkewicz teaches a combined ultraviolet light and ozone fluid sterilization system [abstract] comprising a reflective sleeve (Fig. 8, 58, [0032]) surrounding an annular fluid chamber. Denkewicz further teaches wherein the reflective sleeve is perforated, formed of reflective PTFE, and configured to reflect UV light [0032-0034] into the fluid flowing through the annular chamber.
Denkewicz and Engelhard are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to fluid sterilization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air inlet as taught by Engelhard to include the perforated sleeve as taught by Denkewicz since Denkewicz teaches the sleeve to increase uniformity of the UV treatment [0009] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 23, wherein said perforated panel comprises PTFE (Denkewicz, [0032]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhard (US 20170080373) in view of Morrow (US 20020168305) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/18/2022).
Regarding claim 4, Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1 including a treatment chamber but does not teach wherein the air outlet comprises an exhaust plenum adapted to inhibit escape of UV light from said chamber.
Morrow teaches an air purifier [abstract] comprising an exhaust plenum 22 configured to inhibit the escapee of UV light from a chamber 12 via a UV reflective coating (Figs. 1-3, [0014-0015]).
Morrow and Engelhard are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to fluid purification apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus as taught by Engelhard to include the exhaust plenum as taught by Morrow since Morrow teaches the exhaust plenum to prevent the escape of UV light from a UV treatment chamber via a reflective coating [0014-0015] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhard (US 20170080373) in view of Livchak (US 20130291735) (cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/18/2022).
Regarding claim 5, Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1 but does not teach wherein the apparatus comprises a diffuser connected to the air outlet.
Livchak teaches an ultraviolet air purifier and conditioner [abstract] wherein an embodiment of the purifier comprises a baffle (Fig. 15A, 841) near the outlet of the device to direct treated air in a desired direction [0096]. Livchak further contemplates that flow guides and diffusers may be rearranged to form other embodiments of the device [0096-0097].
Livchak and Engelhard are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are both drawn to air purification apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air outlet as taught by Engelhard with the outlet baffle as taught by Livchak to control the direction and flow pattern of the treated air as it exits the apparatus and prevent backflow as Livchak teaches the baffle is configured to direct air in a desired direction [0096] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 15, Engelhard teaches the apparatus of claim 1 including a treatment chamber but does not teach wherein the chamber is mounted to the ceiling of a room.
Livchak teaches an ultraviolet air purifier and conditioner [abstract] wherein the purifier is mounted to the ceiling of a room [0005].
Livchak and Engelhard are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they are both drawn to air purification apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the apparatus as taught by Engelhard to be placed on a ceiling as taught by Livchak to reduce energy consumption of the fan due to passive air transport and prevent the interference of sterilization operations by users and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhard (US 20170080373) in view of Aefin (US 20150250914).
Regarding claim 9, Engelhard teaches the apparatus according to claim 1 including a treatment chamber but does not teach wherein the chamber comprises multiple curved interior surfaces.
Aeifin teaches a reactor for decontaminating air with UV light [abstract] wherein the reactor comprises a plurality of baffles (Fig. 2, 190) that may be curved [0053] to increase the residence time of fluid inside the reactor and facilitate even UV radiation exposure [0057].
Aefin and Engelhard are considered analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purification apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the chamber as taught by Engelhard with the curved baffles as taught by Aefin since Aefin teaches the baffles to maximize the residence time of the fluid in a treatment chamber and ensure even UV exposure [0057] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhard (US 20170080373) in view of Denkewicz (US 20160122208) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Siegfried (US 20160339447).
Regarding claim 12, Modified Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 2, wherein the inlet comprises a perforated panel but does not teach wherein the perforated panel comprises a plurality of air inlet nozzles.
Siegfried teaches electrostatic particle collector for removing particles from an air flow [0003] wherein the particle collector (Fig. 1, 102) comprises a perforated inlet (Fig. 1, 116 [0030]). Siegfried further teaches wherein the collector comprises an inlet nozzle (Fig. 5, 138) coupled to the perforated inlet to improve the performance of the gas flow and provide a desired amount of flow through the collector [0041-0042].
Siegfried and Modified Engelhard are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to fluid purifying apparatuses. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the perforations in the panel as taught by Modified Engelhard (Hayward, Fig. 8, 58) with the inlet nozzle as taught by Siegfried to improve the air flow into the treatment chamber and ensure optimal air residence time for UV sterilization since Siegfried teaches the inlet nozzle to provide a desired amount of air flow into a treatment chamber [0041-0042] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Engelhard (US 20170080373) in view of Law (US 20170082305).
Regarding claim 13, Engelhard teaches the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, including an air inlet with a directionally changeable nozzle [0096] but does not teach wherein the nozzle is adapted to reduce the size of an air inlet opening when air flowrate through the air inlet is reduced.
Law teaches an air purification device [abstract] with an air flow path adjuster (understood to be a movable nozzle due to tapered shape, Fig. 16a, 3000) that can be adjusted to change an aperture size to control the air volume and flowrate passing through a treatment medium [0072] which decreases the purification time and increases the efficiency of purification [0028].
Law and Engelhard are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since both are drawn to air purification devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the air inlet as taught by Engelhard with the air flow path adjuster as taught by Law to reduce the size of the air inlet opening when the air flow rate becomes reduce to ensure an optimal amount of air volume is moving through the treatment chamber since Law teaches the adjuster to increase efficiency of purification [0028] and this involves the combination of elements to yield a predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100143205 discloses an air purifier with a photocatalytic panel, UV light source, and dynamically adjustable air inlet/outlet nozzles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEBYATE SEGED whose telephone number is (703)756-4611. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00 pm (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/N.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758