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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 4/13/2026, to claims 12, 20, 22 acknowledged by Examiner.
Claims 12-16, 19-22 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-16, 19-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New references have been added as teachings for providing the argued amended language below.
Examiner’s Notes
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
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.
Examiner notes the claim limitation “means for stabilizing the first element” is being interpreted under 112f being towards [0053]: any type of fixing means.
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) 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 20180078062 A1) in view of Konkle (US 20210275375 A1) and Hodgson (US 20100325783 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Pearce discloses a device for supporting a part of a human body (Fig 1, Fig 2, device shown),
the device comprising a first element (Fig 2, first element 106) forming a pneumatic cavity ([0060], first member 106 is a pneumatic cavity),
wherein the pneumatic cavity has a valve ([0060], valve 151),
wherein the pneumatic cavity wherein the pneumatic cavity has a pressure of less than 0.04 bar under a load defined as when a part of the human body bears against the device ([0060], valve allows for adjustment of pressure of the cavity, an electric pump may be used to ensure a specific pressure is present under a load of a human body part), and
wherein at least a surface of the first element (Fig 2, spacer fabric 102) that comes into contact with the part of the human body is covered with a 3D spacer fabric (Fig 2, user side, which is the user contact side, of first member 106 is covered with the fabric 102),
wherein the first element is made up of at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer ([0060], PVC is a thermoplastic polymer), and wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer are sealed edge to edge ([0060], material is two sheets sealed at periphery).
Pearce fails to explicitly provide wherein the pneumatic cavity has a pressure of less than 0.04 bar under a load defined as when a part of the human body bears against the device.
However, Konkle teaches an analogous body support/positioning apparatus (Fig. 1-5) having an analogous pneumatic cavity 15b (Fig. 5 and [0014] first portion 15a is a gas filled bladder being a pneumatic cavity),
wherein the pneumatic cavity has a pressure of less than 0.04 bar under a load defined as when a part of the human body bears against the device ([0015] the upper bladders/first portion 15a may be filled to less than 0.5 psi being 0.034 bar, thus less than 0.04 bar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the pneumatic cavity of Pearce wherein the pneumatic cavity has a pressure of less than 0.04 bar under a load defined as when a part of the human body bears against the device as taught by Konkle in order to have provided a comfortable body weight support pressure to the pneumatic cavity (Konkle [0016]).
Pearce does not disclose wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer exhibit a modulus of elasticity under tension at 10% elongation of less than 10 MPa.
However, Hodgson teaches about the field of art for forming strong seals which are free of leaks (see [0003] thus being applicable to the present invention as pneumatic cavities must remain free of leaks in order to keep their fluid/gas contained) wherein Hodgson teaches an analogous thermoplastic as part of a seal (see [0003], being a polyurethane thermoplastic), wherein the polyurethane thermoplastic may be TUFTANE TFL-1E (see [0033]) as the chosen preferred thermoplastic for providing a strong seal and lack of leakage formed in the product therein (see [0033, 0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer of Pearce to be instead the thermoplastic polyurethane as sold as TUFTANE TFL-1E as taught by Hodgson in order to provide a known thermoplastic that would keep the pneumatic cavity free of leaks (Hodgson [0003, 0033]).
Pearce as modified by Hodgson does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer exhibit a modulus of elasticity under tension at 10% elongation of less than 10 MPa.
However, the present application discloses that the modulus of elasticity feature as claimed is obtained from the usage of thermoplastic polyurethane sold under the name Tuftane TFL-1E (see instant application [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have known that the thermoplastic TUFTANE TFL-1E from Hodgson would exhibit implicitly the property of “a modulus of elasticity under tension at 10% elongation of less than 10 MPa” as shown further by MPEP 2112.01(I) which states “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”.
With respect to claim 13, Pearce in view of Konkle and Hodgson discloses the device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 12.
Pearce further discloses wherein a buckling stress of the 3D spacer fabric is greater than an inflation pressure of the pneumatic cavity ([0048], spacer fabric with a buckling stress, pneumatic cavity as detailed filled one ¼ of the way full has a lower buckling stress).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 20180078062 A1) in view of Konkle (US 20210275375 A1) and Hodgson (US 20100325783 A1) view of Zoni III (US 20200360210 A1).
With respect to claim 14, Pearce/Konkle/Hodgson discloses The device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 13.
Pearce is silent on wherein the buckling stress of the 3D spacer fabric is less than 0.2 bar.
Zoni III teaches an analogous top layer spacer fabric wherein the buckling stress of the 3D spacer fabric is less than 0.2 bar ([0118], top spacer fabric with stress compression value of 6.0kPAa which is a buckling stress of 0.06 bar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the buckling stress of the top later of Pearce to be the stress as taught by Zoni III as it taught to be sufficient to support a user and other layers (Zoni III [0011]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 20180078062 A1) in view of Konkle (US 20210275375 A1) and Hodgson (US 20100325783 A1) view of LaFleche (US 20100146709 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Pearce/Konkle/Hodgson discloses The device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 12.
Pearce is silent on wherein a thickness of the 3D spacer fabric is less than 10 mm.
Lafleche teaches an analogous spacer fabric wherein a thickness of the 3D spacer fabric is less than 10 mm ([0071], 3D spacer fabric with 1/8 inch thickness which is 3.175 mm) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of Pearce to be the thickness as detailed in Lafleche in order to better allow for air flow through the material (Lafleche [0071]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 20180078062 A1) in view of Konkle (US 20210275375 A1) and Hodgson (US 20100325783 A1) view of Sanders (US 20110185500 A1).
With respect to claim 16, Pearce/Konkle/Hodgson discloses The device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 12.
Pearce is silent on, wherein a permeability of the 3D spacer fabric is greater than 1000 1/dm2xmin at a pressure of 1 mbar.
Sanders teaches an analogous permeable material wherein a permeability of the 3D spacer fabric is greater than 1000 1/dm2xmin at a pressure of 1 mbar ([0029], Sanders teaches a series of permeabilities that are desirable and each have a high permeability, including 1000 l/dm2/min at 13 Pa)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the permeability of the fabric of Pearce to be permeable as taught by Sanders in order to improve the breathability of the fabric and improv ethe user experience (Sanders [0006], [0007]).
Examiner notes, in light of cited prior art that the claimed permeability are design choices considered as result effective variables, which can be optimized within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation to best fit each individual human anatomy. The claimed permeability which fell within the broad scope of the references are held to be unpatentable there over because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed permeability within the specification. And where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearce (US 20180078062 A1) in view of Konkle (US 20210275375 A1) and Hodgson (US 20100325783 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20120317727 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Pearce/Konkle/Hodgson discloses a method for supporting a part of a human body implementing the device according to claim 12,
the method comprising: in a first step, partially filling the pneumatic cavity of the first element with air ([0062], partially full bladder); in a second step, disposing the part of the human body on the first element ([0005], [0060], user is supported).
Pearce is silent on and in a third step, regulating a pressure of the pneumatic cavity (4) of the first element (1) to a pressure less than 0.04 bar.
Tanaka teaches an analogous inflatable support system having a supporting bladder (Fig 1, upper bladder 17b) and the teaches the step of regulating a pressure of the pneumatic cavity (4) of the first element (1) to a pressure less than 0.04 bar ([0058], [0059], upper bladder is smaller in pressure than lower bladder, lower bladder is 1.5 kPa, or 0.015 bar, so the bladder is less than 0.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pearce to have two bladder system with the pressures as taught by Tanaka in order to better stabilize a user (Tanaka [0059]).
With respect to claim 22, Pearce in view of Tanaka discloses the method according to claim 21.
Tanaka further teaches wherein the device has a second element at least partially forming a pneumatic cavity (Tanaka Fig 1, lower bladder 17c), and wherein the method further comprises a fourth step of regulating a pressure of the pneumatic cavity of the second element to a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar (Tanaka [0058], regulated to a pressure of 6.4 kPa, or 0.064 bar; the prior art falls within the claimed range and therefore meets the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Pearce to have two bladder system with the pressures as taught by Tanaka in order to better stabilize a user (Tanaka [0059]).
Claims 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Therkildsen (US 20190380504 A1) in view of Stelter (US 20120060293 A1) and Sharrock (US 6327724 B1) in view of Konkle (US 20210275375 A1) and Hodgson (US 20100325783 A1).
With respect to claim 12, Therkildsen discloses a device for supporting a part of a human body (Fig 1, Fig 2, device 22),
the device comprising a first element forming a pneumatic cavity, wherein the pneumatic cavity has a valve ([0051], line 76 allows for inflation, deflation, and maintaining pressure, as this system can control the intake and output form the bladder it obviously has a valve),
wherein the pneumatic cavity has a pressure of less than 0.04 bar under a load defined as when a part of the human body bears against the device ([0051], line 76 allows for inflation, deflation, and maintaining pressure, as desired by the user so it may keep a pressure of 0.04 bar under a load being a human body part).
Therkildsen discloses a fabric cover (Fig 2, fabric 58) and a series of sheets which are sealed at their edges ([0050]) but is silent on and wherein at least a surface of the first element that comes into contact with the part of the human body is covered with a 3D spacer fabric, wherein the first element is made up of at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer, and wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer are sealed edge to edge.
Stelter teaches an analogous covering for a chamber wherein at least a surface of the first element that comes into contact with the part of the human body is covered with a 3D spacer fabric ([0010], outer material may be a spacer fabric).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the fabric cover of Therkildsen to have the spacer fabric as taught by Stelter in order to better disperse moisture and heat coming from a user (Stelter [0010]).
Therkildsen/Stelter is silent wherein the first element is made up of at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer, and wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer are sealed edge to edge.
Sharrock teaches an analogous inflatable bladder and user support having the first element is made up of at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer (col 6 ll 60-70, urethane coated nylon, nylon is a thermoplastic polymer), and wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer are sealed edge to edge (col 6 ll 60-70, sealed at the periphery).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the chambers of Therkildsen/Stelter to be coated nylon as taught by Sharrock to repel unwanted fluids and maintain an inflated state (Sharrock col 5 ll 55-65).
Therkildsen fails to explicitly provide wherein the pneumatic cavity has a pressure of less than 0.04 bar under a load defined as when a part of the human body bears against the device.
However, Konkle teaches an analogous body support/positioning apparatus (Fig. 1-5) having an analogous pneumatic cavity 15b (Fig. 5 and [0014] first portion 15a is a gas filled bladder being a pneumatic cavity),
wherein the pneumatic cavity has a pressure of less than 0.04 bar under a load defined as when a part of the human body bears against the device ([0015] the upper bladders/first portion 15a may be filled to less than 0.5 psi being 0.034 bar, thus less than 0.04 bar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the pneumatic cavity of Therkildsen wherein the pneumatic cavity has a pressure of less than 0.04 bar under a load defined as when a part of the human body bears against the device as taught by Konkle in order to have provided a comfortable body weight support pressure to the pneumatic cavity (Konkle [0016]).
Therkildsen/Stelter/Sharrock does not disclose wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer exhibit a modulus of elasticity under tension at 10% elongation of less than 10 MPa.
However, Hodgson teaches about the field of art for forming strong seals which are free of leaks (see [0003] thus being applicable to the present invention as pneumatic cavities must remain free of leaks in order to keep their fluid/gas contained) wherein Hodgson teaches an analogous thermoplastic as part of a seal (see [0003], being a polyurethane thermoplastic), wherein the polyurethane thermoplastic may be TUFTANE TFL-1E (see [0033]) as the chosen preferred thermoplastic for providing a strong seal and lack of leakage formed in the product therein (see [0033, 0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer of Therkildsen as modified by Sharrock to be instead the thermoplastic polyurethane as sold as TUFTANE TFL-1E as taught by Hodgson in order to provide a known thermoplastic that would keep the pneumatic cavity free of leaks (Hodgson [0003, 0033]).
Therkildsen/Sharrock as modified by Hodgson does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two sheets of thermoplastic polymer exhibit a modulus of elasticity under tension at 10% elongation of less than 10 MPa.
However, the present application discloses that the modulus of elasticity feature as claimed is obtained from the usage of thermoplastic polyurethane sold under the name Tuftane TFL-1E (see instant application [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have known that the thermoplastic TUFTANE TFL-1E from Hodgson would exhibit implicitly the property of “a modulus of elasticity under tension at 10% elongation of less than 10 MPa” as shown further by MPEP 2112.01(I) which states “when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent”.
With respect to claim 19, Therkildsen/Stelter/Sharrock/Konkle/Hodgson discloses The device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 12.
Therkildsen discloses wherein the device has at least one second element (Therkildsen Fig 2, second element 24),wherein the at least one second element is made up of a deformable structure (Therkildsen [0050], second element 24 is a bladder so it is deformable), and wherein the at least one second element has means for stabilizing the first element (Therkildsen [0050], bladders are coupled together; limitation interpreted under 112f- instant application [0053]: any type of fixing means).
With respect to claim 20, Therkildsen/Stelter/Sharrock/Konkle/Hodgson discloses the device for supporting a part of a human body according to claim 19.
Therkildsen discloses wherein the at least one second element is at least partially made up of a cavity (Therkildsen [0050], second element 24 is a bladder), wherein the cavity of the at least one second element has a valve (Therkildsen [0051], line 78 allows for inflation, deflation, and maintaining pressure, as this system can control the intake and output form the bladder it obviously has a valve), and wherein the cavity of the at least one second element has a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar under load (Therkildsen [0051], line 76 allows for inflation, deflation, and maintaining pressure, as desired by the user so it may keep a pressure of 0.04 bar).
Therkildsen fails to explicitly recite wherein the cavity of the at least one second element has a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar under load.
However, Konkle teaches an analogous body support/positioning apparatus (Fig. 1-5) comprising analogous first elements 15a (see [0014] and Fig. 5) for contact the body of the user and analogous second elements 15b/15c for supporting the first portions 15a (see [0014] and Fig. 5) for supporting a body part of the user (see [0004]);
wherein the at least one first element 15a each forms a pneumatic cavity (Fig. 5 and [0014] first portion 15a is a gas filled bladder being a pneumatic cavity),
wherein the at least one first element has a valve (see [0018] the bladders may have ports being valves for the filling of the bladders to customized pressures),
wherein the at least one first element of has a pressure of less than 0.04 bar underneath a weight of the human body ([0015] the upper bladders/first portion 15a may be filled to less than 0.5 psi being 0.034 bar, thus less than 0.04 bar, the bladders herein capable of being used as a shoulder support),
wherein the second element 15b/15c of at least one support module for a part of the human body is at least partially made up of a cavity (Fig. 5 and [0014] second portion 15b/15c is a gas filled bladder being thus partially formed of a cavity),
wherein the second element 15b/15c of at least one support module for a part of the human body has a valve (see [0018] the bladders may have ports being valves for the filling of the bladders to customized pressures),
wherein the second element of at least one support module for a part of the human body has a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar underneath the weight of the human body being a load ([0015] the bladders 15b/15c being the second portion are capable of being filled to at least 0.5 psi (0.034 psi) wherein the lower bladders are filled to a higher pressure than the upper bladders and may be a multiple of the 0.5 psi of the upper bladders 15a, multiples being whole integers of [1, 2, 3, 4…], thus can be filled up to at least 2 psi being 0.14 bar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the first and second elements of Therkildsen to be inflatable bladders as taught by Konkle as the bladder structure enables the supports to be used in multiple positional configurations for supporting a body part therein (Konkle [0016]), thus providing wherein the cavity of the at least one second element has a pressure of between 0.05 and 1 bar under load in order to have provided a comfortable body weight support pressure to the pneumatic cavity experienced by the user (Konkle [0016]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 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, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. 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.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights