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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the provided abstract is more than one paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/257,287 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of Application No. 18/257,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the broadened claim language of the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the cited claims. Reference claims 1 and 5 disclose, a levitation and levitated transport system (claim 1), comprising: a base planar arrangement of permanent magnets (claim 1 and “planar” claim 5), wherein every said base magnet has a magnetization vector which points in a direction, and said magnetization vector of every said base magnet points in the same said direction, which direction is normal from said plane of said base arrangement; and wherein every said base magnet is attached to a linear actuator which can lift said base magnet or magnets up in the said direction, above the said base plane, without changing the direction of said lifted magnets' magnetization vectors; and wherein every said base magnet is separated laterally from its adjacent nearest neighbor magnets; and one or more levitated planar arrangements of one or more permanent magnets, wherein every said levitated magnet is rigidly attached to the underside of a levitated object; and wherein every said levitated magnet has a magnetization vector which points in a direction, and said magnetization vector of every said levitated magnet points in the same direction, which direction is normal from said plane of said levitated arrangement, and which direction is opposite to the direction of each said base magnet; and wherein said levitated planar arrangement of permanent magnets has a footprint, which is defined as the combined lateral area and pattern occupied by all of the said levitated magnets (claim 1).
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of Application No. 18/257,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the broadened claim language of the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the cited claims. Reference claim 7 discloses, the levitation and levitated transport system, further comprising: a first nonmagnetic false floor situated between the said base planar arrangement of permanent magnets and the said levitated planar arrangement of one or more permanent magnets, which false floor has a footprint and a plane which is parallel to the said base plane and the said levitated plane (claim 7).
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of Application No. 18/257,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the broadened claim language of the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the cited claims. Reference claim 9 discloses, the levitation and levitated transport system, further comprising: a second nonmagnetic false floor situated above the said levitated planar arrangement of one or more permanent magnets, which second false floor has a footprint and a plane which is parallel to said first false floor (claim 9).
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of Application No. 18/257,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the broadened claim language of the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the cited claims. Reference claim 10 discloses the levitation and levitated transport system, for use as a single-directional or omni- directional treadmill-like machine to support a human, further comprising: wherein said levitated object comprises a multiplicity of levitated objects, each levitated object being configured to receive and support the weight of a human foot; and wherein said the said footprint of the said second false floor is different from the said footprint of the said first false floor (claim 10).
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of Application No. 18/257,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the broadened claim language of the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the cited claims. Reference claim 13 discloses, the levitation and levitated transport system, further comprising: wherein the said base planar arrangement of permanent magnets is rigidly attached onto a moveable object, deck or vehicle (claim 13).
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of Application No. 18/257,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, the broadened claim language of the instant claims are not patentably distinct from the cited claims. Reference claim 15 discloses, the levitation and levitated transport system, further comprising: wherein the said base planar arrangement of permanent magnets is rigidly attached onto a moveable object, deck or vehicle (claim 15).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, lines 3-4: “magnets, which false floor has” should be “magnets, in which the false floor has”
Claim 4, line 3: “magnets, which second false floor has” should be “magnets, in which the second floor has”
Claim 5, line 5: “wherein said the said” should be “wherein said”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 18-20 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.
The following are non-limiting examples of indefinite or unclear claim limitations:
Claims 1-11 and 18-20 recite limitations that are inconsistent with the specification. The limitations including, “a base planar arrangement”, “one or more levitated planar arrangements”, “a magnetization vector”, “permanent driver magnets”, “permanent pushable magnets” are not mentioned within the specification. These limitations are inconsistent with the disclosure making it unclear which components Applicant is intending to claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "said base magnet" in line 3 and “said levitated magnet” line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the same” in lines 4 and 15 and "the underside" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "said plane of said levitated arrangement" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "said plane of said base arrangement” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 1, 2 and 10 recite the indefinite pronoun “its”. Please replace with the noun to which it refers.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the smallest lateral dimension" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "said base plane" and “said levitated plane” in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the weight" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites, “an area without magnets, which magnet-less area is situated inside the said perimeter.” It is unclear to Examiner if Applicant is defining “an area without magnets” as “magnet-less area” to be the same component. Further, claim 9 then recites “said attractive magnets are placed in said magnet-less area” which is unclear to Examiner if the magnet-less area is defined as an area without magnets, placement of attractive magnets contradicts prior limitations.
Claim 1 recites, “which direction is normal from said plane of said base arrangement”. It is unclear to Examiner what is meant by “normal from said plane of said base arrangement” and the specification makes no mention the limitation. This rejection likewise applies to claims 18-20.
Claims 18-20 recite the limitations "said plane" in lines 5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mang (DE 19960321 A1) in view of Dermatis (WO 2020136395 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Mang teaches a levitation and levitated transport system, comprising: a base planar arrangement of permanent magnets (Fig.3), wherein every said base magnet has a magnetization vector which points in a direction, and said magnetization vector of every said base magnet points in the same said direction, which direction is normal from said plane of said base arrangement (Fig.1); and wherein said base magnet or magnets can lift up in the said direction, above the said base plane (see attached EPO translation; Para.[0017]), without changing the direction of said lifted magnets' magnetization vectors; and wherein every said base magnet is separated laterally from its adjacent nearest neighbor magnets (Fig.3); and one or more levitated planar arrangements of one or more permanent magnets (4,5; Fig.1), wherein every said levitated magnet (5; Fig.1) is rigidly attached to the underside of a levitated object (4; Fig.1); and wherein every said levitated magnet has a magnetization vector which points in a direction, and said magnetization vector of every said levitated magnet points in the same direction, which direction is normal from said plane of said levitated arrangement, and which direction is opposite to the direction of each said base magnet (Fig.1); and wherein said levitated planar arrangement of permanent magnets has a footprint, which is defined as the combined lateral area and pattern occupied by all of the said levitated magnets (Fig.1). Mang does not teach wherein every said base magnet is attached to a linear actuator.
However, Dermatis teaches wherein every said base magnet (42; Fig.3) is attached to a linear actuator (46; Fig.3) to control and levitate objects above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang to provide linear actuators to control the lifting of the base magnets as in Dermatis to provide an efficient control of the base magnets with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2: Mang further teaches the levitation and levitated transport system of Claim 1, further comprising: wherein every said base magnet is separated laterally from its adjacent nearest neighbor base magnets by a spacing (Fig.3). Mang does not specifically teach the spacing being less than the smallest lateral dimension of a levitated magnet being used in the system.
Mang in view of Dermatis teaches the claimed invention except for the spacing being less than the smallest lateral dimension of a levitated magnet being used in the system. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to change the spacing of the magnets, since such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 3: Mang further teaches the levitation and levitated transport system of Claim 1, further comprising: a first nonmagnetic false floor situated between the said base planar arrangement of permanent magnets and the said levitated planar arrangement of one or more permanent magnets, which false floor has a footprint and a plane which is parallel to the said base plane and the said levitated plane (1; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 4: Mang further teaches the levitation and levitated transport system of Claim 3, further comprising: a second nonmagnetic false floor situated above the said levitated planar arrangement of one or more permanent magnets, which second false floor has a footprint and a plane which is parallel to said first false floor (bottom surface of 4; Fig.1).
Regarding claim 10: Mang further teaches the levitation and levitated transport system of Claim 1, further comprising: wherein every said levitated magnet is separated laterally from its adjacent nearest neighbor magnets by a spacing which is not the same as the said lateral spacing between the said adjacent nearest neighbor base magnets (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 11: Mang further teaches the levitation and levitated transport system of Claim 1, further comprising: wherein every said base magnet or magnets up in the said direction at least 0.25 cm above the said base plane, without changing the direction of said lifted magnets' magnetization vectors (Para.[0017]). Mang does not teach wherein every said base magnet is attached to a linear actuator.
However, Dermatis teaches wherein every said base magnet (42; Fig.3) is attached to a linear actuator (46; Fig.3) to control and levitate objects above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang to provide linear actuators to control the lifting of the base magnets as in Dermatis to provide an efficient control of the base magnets with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mang in view of Dermatis and Epstein et al. (WO 2020106369 A2).
Regarding claim 5: Mang further teaches wherein the footprint of the said second false floor is different from the said footprint of the said first false floor (Fig.1). Mang does not teach the system being for use as a single-directional or omni- directional treadmill-like machine to support a human, further comprising: wherein said levitated object comprises a multiplicity of levitated objects, each levitated object being configured to receive and support the weight of a human foot.
However, Epstein teaches use as a single-directional or omni- directional treadmill-like machine to support a human (Fig.5), further comprising: wherein said levitated object comprises a multiplicity of levitated objects (Fig.9B), each levitated object being configured to receive and support the weight of a human foot (Fig.5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang to be used to support a human as a treadmill-like machine to provide an interactive and efficient experience for users with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mang in view of Dermatis and Konigorski et al. (US 20150251561 A1).
Regarding claims 6 and 7: Mang does not teach wherein the said base planar arrangement of permanent magnets is rigidly attached onto a moveable object, deck or vehicle.
However, Konigorski teaches wherein the said base planar arrangement of permanent magnets is rigidly attached onto a moveable object, deck or vehicle (Fig.3 and Para.[0053], lines 16-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang to be attached to a moveable object, deck or vehicle as in Konigorski to provide adaptable and moveable system uses with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8, 9 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mang in view of Dermatis and Frangen (US 20190348898 A1).
Regarding claim 8: Mang does not teach wherein said levitated planar arrangement of permanent magnets comprises a plurality of magnets placed in a perimeter formation, and an area without magnets, which magnet-less area is situated inside the said perimeter.
However, Frangen teaches wherein said levitated planar arrangement of permanent magnets (Fig.3F,3G) comprises a plurality of magnets placed in a perimeter formation (Fig.3F), and an area without magnets, which magnet-less area is situated inside the said perimeter (Fig.3F). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang with the formation of Frangen to provide stable levitation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9: Mang teaches the base magnets having the same magnetization vector (Fig.1). Mang does not teach a plurality of permanent magnets, called the attractive magnets, each having a magnetization vector which points in the same direction as the magnetization vector of the said base magnets; and wherein said attractive magnets are placed in said magnet-less area.
However, Frangen teaches a plurality of permanent magnets, called the attractive magnets, each having a magnetization vector which points in the same direction (center magnet in Z1 direction; Fig.3G) as the magnetization vector of the said base magnets; and wherein said attractive magnets are placed in said magnet-less area (Fig.3G). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang with the formation of Frangen to provide stable levitation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18: Mang teaches a wireless power transfer system, comprising a planar arrangement of one or more permanent driver magnets (Fig.3),wherein every said driver magnet has a magnetization vector which points in a direction, and said magnetization vector of every said driver magnet points in the same said direction, which direction is normal from said plane of said planar arrangement (Fig.1); and wherein the driver magnet or magnets can move in the said direction, away from the said plane, without changing the direction of said actuated magnets' magnetization vectors (Para.[0017]); and an arrangement of one or more permanent pushable magnets (5; Fig.1), wherein every said pushable magnet has a magnetization vector which points in a direction, and said magnetization vector of every said pushable magnet points in the same said direction, which direction is opposite from said direction of said driver magnets (Fig.1). Mang does not teach wherein every said driver magnet is attached to a linear actuator and wherein every said pushable magnet is attached to a reciprocating or rotating member of a generator, engine or machine.
However, Dermatis teaches wherein every said driver magnet (42; Fig.3) is attached to a linear actuator (46; Fig.3) to control and levitate objects above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang to provide linear actuators to control the lifting of the driver magnets as in Dermatis to provide an efficient control of the driver magnets with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, Frangen teaches wherein every said pushable magnet is attached to a reciprocating or rotating member of a generator, engine or machine (Para.[0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang with the component orientations of Frangen to provide efficient wireless power transfer within the system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19: Mang teaches a wireless power transfer system, comprising a planar arrangement of one or more permanent driver magnets (Fig.3), wherein every said driver magnet has a magnetization vector which points in a direction, and said magnetization vector of every said driver magnet points in the same said direction, which direction is normal from said plane of said planar arrangement (Fig.1); and wherein said driver magnet or magnets can move in the said direction, away from the said plane, without changing the direction of said actuated magnets' magnetization vectors (Para.[0017]); and an arrangement of one or more permanent pushable magnets (5; Fig.1), wherein every said pushable magnet has a magnetization vector which points in a direction, and said magnetization vector of every said pushable magnet points in the same said direction, which direction is opposite from said direction of said driver magnets (Fig.1). Mang does not teach wherein every said driver magnet is attached to a linear actuator and wherein every said pushable magnet is configured to be pushed towards or through one or more coils, for the purpose of creating magnetic flux and therefore electricity.
However, Dermatis teaches wherein every said driver magnet (42; Fig.3) is attached to a linear actuator (46; Fig.3) to control and levitate objects above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang to provide linear actuators to control the lifting of the driver magnets as in Dermatis to provide an efficient control of the driver magnets with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, Frangen teaches wherein every said pushable magnet is configured to be pushed towards or through one or more coils, for the purpose of creating magnetic flux and therefore electricity (Para.[0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang with the component orientations of Frangen to provide efficient wireless power transfer within the system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20: Mang teaches a wireless power transfer system, comprising a planar arrangement of one or more permanent driver magnets (Fig.3), wherein every said driver magnet has a magnetization vector which points in a direction, and said magnetization vector of every said driver magnet points in the same said direction, which direction is normal from said plane of said planar arrangement (Fig.1); and wherein said driver magnet or magnets can move in the said direction, away from the said plane, without changing the direction of said actuated magnets' magnetization vectors (Para.[0017]); and an arrangement of one or more permanent pushable magnets (5; Fig.1), wherein every said pushable magnet has a magnetization vector which points in a direction, and said magnetization vector of every said pushable magnet points in the same said direction, which direction is opposite from said direction of said driver magnets (Fig.1). Mang does not teach wherein every said driver magnet is attached to a linear actuator and wherein every said pushable magnet is attached to a platform and shaft which are configured to spin around the said shaft's Z axis; and wherein said shaft is connected to a generator, engine or machine.
However, Dermatis teaches wherein every said driver magnet (42; Fig.3) is attached to a linear actuator (46; Fig.3) to control and levitate objects above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang to provide linear actuators to control the lifting of the driver magnets as in Dermatis to provide an efficient control of the driver magnets with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further, Frangen teaches wherein every said pushable magnet is attached to a platform and shaft which are configured to spin around the said shaft's Z axis; and wherein said shaft is connected to a generator, engine or machine (Para.[0071]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Mang with the component orientations of Frangen to provide efficient wireless power transfer within the system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEAVEN BUFFINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-1546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm ET.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at (571)272-8300. 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.
/HEAVEN R BUFFINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615