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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-14, 16-20), Species B (Fig. 2) in the reply filed on 2/5/2025 is acknowledged.
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(s) is/are:
“one or more high pressure expansion devices” in claim 1;
“one or more low pressure expansion devices” in claim 1;
“one or more auxiliary high pressure expansion devices” in claim 9 and 20;
“one or more measuring devices” in claim 11;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these 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.
After reviewing the specification, the expansion devices (both auxiliary, and “high” and “low”) appear to be drawn to an electronic expansion valve, or known equivalents (per paragraph [0060]), and the measuring devices are not defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 5-6 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “measuring devices” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim invokes 112f through the recitation of the functional term “measuring” and the generic placeholder of “devices” which renders the claim indefinite as the specification does not define the actual structure which performs the functions of the claim, thereby making the metes and bounds of what constitutes the measuring devices unclear. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 12, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff (US 2014/0053585), alone.
Regarding claim 1, Huff teaches a refrigeration system for transferring heat, wherein the refrigeration system (see Abstract) comprises:
a main refrigeration system (20, Fig. 2) comprising:
one or more first compressors (30a, Fig. 2, paragraph [0016]) for compressing a carbon dioxide (CO2) refrigerant (see paragraphs [0027], [0005]);
a main heat rejection system for cooling the CO2 refrigerant discharged from the one or more first compressors (80, Fig. 2, paragraph [0022]);
one or more high pressure expansion devices for reducing pressure of the CO2 refrigerant discharged from the main heat rejection system (65, Fig. 2, paragraph [0025]);
a receiver for receiving the CO2 refrigerant from the one or more high pressure expansion devices (60, Fig. 2, paragraph [0015]);
one or more low pressure expansion devices for reducing the pressure of a liquid phase of the CO2 refrigerant from the receiver (55, Fig. 2, paragraph [0015]);
an evaporator for evaporating the liquid phase part of the CO2 refrigerant from the one or more low pressure expansion devices and thereafter directing the evaporated liquid phase part of the CO2 refrigerant to a suction side of the one or more first compressors (50, Fig. 2, paragraph [0015]);
an auxiliary refrigeration system comprising:
an auxiliary compressor arranged to compress at least part of a vapour phase of the CO2 refrigerant from the receiver to generate compressed CO2 refrigerant and to direct the compressed CO2 (30b, Fig. 2, paragraph [0016]) refrigerant to a heat rejection system (40, Fig. 2, paragraph [0022]).
Huff does not teach a nominal maximal volume rate of flow of the compressed refrigerant of the auxiliary compressor is less than 10% of the nominal maximal volume rate of flow of compressed refrigerant of the one or more first compressors. However, the claimed nominal maximal volume flow rate of the auxiliary compressor being 10% less than the nominal maximal volume rate of flow of compressed refrigerant of the one or more first compressors is merely a result effective variable, the general conditions of which are recognized by the prior art. Namely, the claim requires an auxiliary compressor which has a smaller flow rate than the one or more main compressors. As Huff teaches that the auxiliary compressor has a smaller flow rate than the main compressor by the clear depiction of the amount of refrigerant that flows through the auxiliary compressor being smaller than the main compressor, it is not patentably distinguishable to claim an application specific ratio between the two compressors. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Huff with a nominal maximal volume rate of flow of the compressed refrigerant of the auxiliary compressor is less than 10% of the nominal maximal volume rate of flow of compressed refrigerant of the one or more first compressors, in order to assess how this effects the desired rate of heat transfer in the system.
Regarding claim 2, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more first compressors are arranged to compress the CO2 refrigerant from the vapour phase of the CO2 refrigerant to a supercritical phase and wherein the main heat rejection system is arranged to cool supercritical CO2 refrigerant discharged from the one or more first compressors (see paragraph [0022] at least which notes the cycle is a transcritical cycle, therefore compressed refrigerant is supercritical).
Regarding claim 3, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 2, wherein the one or more high pressure expansion devices are arranged to reduce the pressure of the CO2 refrigerant in the supercritical phase, after being discharged from the main heat rejection system, wherein the one or more high pressure expansion devices are further arranged to decompress the CO2 refrigerant to a subcritical state (the limitation is drawn to intended use, the expansion valve of Huff inherently reduces the pressure of refrigerant after being cooled in the heat rejection system to bring it down from a supercritical level).
Regarding claim 4, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the receiver is arranged to receive subcritical CO2 refrigerant from the one or more high pressure expansion devices (after being expanded in 65, the refrigerant becomes subcritical).
Regarding claim 5, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary compressor is arranged to either compress at least part of the vapour phase of the CO2 refrigerant from the receiver to a supercritical phase and thereafter to direct the compressed CO2 refrigerant to the auxiliary heat rejection system ((see paragraph [0022] at least which notes the cycle is a transcritical cycle, therefore compressed refrigerant is supercritical, the compressor 30b directs refrigerant to the auxiliary heat rejection system 40 in Fig. 2) or
compress at least part of the vapour phase of the CO2 refrigerant from the suction side of the one or more compressors to a supercritical phase and thereafter to direct the compressed CO2 refrigerant to the main heat rejection system (this limitation is not required as the claim is claimed in the alternative).
Regarding claim 6, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary compressor is arranged to direct the compressed CO2 refrigerant to the main heat rejection system (see Fig. 2, refrigerant is ultimately redirected back to 80).
Regarding claim 7, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the main heat rejection system is arranged to allow for cooling of the CO2 refrigerant discharged from the auxiliary compressor and to allow the CO2 refrigerant to be led through the main heat rejection system, when the main heat rejection system is off (the system is capable of performing the function recited by the claim).
Regarding claim 8, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary compressor is arranged to direct the compressed CO2 refrigerant to an auxiliary heat rejection system (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary refrigeration system comprises a control system for controlling a flow of CO2 refrigerant to the auxiliary compressor (64, 68, Fig. 2, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 16, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the nominal maximal volume rate of flow of compressed refrigerant of the auxiliary compressor is less than 5% of the nominal maximal volume rate of flow of the compressed refrigerant of the one or more first compressors.
Regarding claim 17, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the nominal maximal volume rate of flow of compressed refrigerant of the auxiliary compressor is less than 1% of the nominal maximal volume rate of flow of the compressed refrigerant of the one or more first compressors (see motivation to combine in claim 1 as the rationale is the same).
Regarding claim 18, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the nominal maximal volume rate of flow of compressed refrigerant of the auxiliary compressor is less than 0.5% of the nominal maximal volume rate of flow of the compressed refrigerant of the one or more first compressors (see motivation to combine in claim 1 as the rationale is the same).
Claims 9-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff in view of Christensen (US 2016/0102901 – provided by Applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 9, Huff teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the auxiliary refrigeration system further comprises one or more auxiliary high pressure expansion devices for expanding the CO2 refrigerant received from the main heat rejection system. Christensen teaches a CO2 refrigeration system (Christensen, Title) which teaches a main refrigeration system (Christensen, 10, Fig. 4) and an auxiliary refrigeration system (Christensen, 30, Fig. 4, paragraph [0062]) comprising an auxiliary compressor (Christensen, 36, Fig. 4, paragraph [0056]) with an auxiliary expansion valve (Christensen, 34, Fig. 4, paragraph [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Huff with an auxiliary expansion valve, as taught by Christensen, in order to provide greater control over the desired superheat and temperature in the system (Christensen, paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, Huff teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, but does not specifically teach one or more control systems for controlling operation of the auxiliary refrigeration system, including the auxiliary compressor, based on one or more inputs. The Examiner notes that Huff is replete with references to control of the system without explicit mention of a control system. However, Christensen teaches a CO2 refrigeration system (Christensen, Title) which teaches a main refrigeration system (Christensen, 10, Fig. 4) and an auxiliary refrigeration system (Christensen, 30, Fig. 4, paragraph [0062]) comprising an auxiliary compressor (Christensen, 36, Fig. 4, paragraph [0056]) that is controlled based on pressure inputs received by a controller from a pressure sensor (Christensen, paragraph [0056]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Huff with controlling the auxiliary compressor and refrigerant system based on one or more inputs, as taught by Christensen, in order to maintain proper pressure requirements within the system by continually monitoring pressure in the system.
Regarding claim 11, Huff teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, wherein the refrigeration system comprises one or more measuring devices for measuring a value representative of at least one of a pressure or a temperature of the refrigeration system and providing an input accordingly to one or more control systems of the refrigeration system (Christensen, paragraph [0056], see motivation to combine in the rejection of claim 10 above).
Regarding claim 19, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 10, wherein the one or more inputs at least one of represent a pressure or a temperature of the refrigeration system (Christensen, paragraph [0056]).
Regarding claim 20, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 8, but does not teach that the auxiliary refrigeration system further comprises one or more auxiliary high pressure expansion devices for expanding the CO2 refrigerant received from the auxiliary heat rejection system.
Christensen teaches a CO2 refrigeration system (Christensen, Title) which teaches a main refrigeration system (Christensen, 10, Fig. 4) and an auxiliary refrigeration system (Christensen, 30, Fig. 4, paragraph [0062]) comprising an auxiliary compressor (Christensen, 36, Fig. 4, paragraph [0056]) with an auxiliary expansion valve (Christensen, 34, Fig. 4, paragraph [0062]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Huff with an auxiliary expansion valve, as taught by Christensen, in order to provide greater control over the desired superheat and temperature in the system (Christensen, paragraph [0064]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff in view of Lifson (US 2018/0156499).
Regarding claim 13, Huff teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, but does not teach that the auxiliary refrigeration system comprises a control system comprising one or more pulse width modulation (PWM) valves, and wherein the control system of the refrigeration system is arranged to control the operation of the one or more PWM valves based on one or more inputs representing at least one of a pressure or temperature of the refrigeration system.
However, Lifson teaches a valve that can be controlled as a PWM valve on the basis of pressure readings from a pressure sensor (Lifson, paragraph [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Huff with the valves in the auxiliary refrigeration system as PWM valves controlled by pressure, as taught by Lifson, in order to assess how the use of PWM valves impacts the desired heat transfer in the system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huff in view of DelVentura (US 2016/0178244).
Regarding claim 14, Huff as modified teaches the refrigeration system according to claim 1, but does not teach the auxiliary refrigeration system is arranged to be powered by an auxiliary power supply separate from a power supply of the main refrigeration system.
DelVentura teaches a CO2 based auxiliary cooling system (DelVentura, Title) which features its own independent power supply that is separate from the main system (DelVentura, paragraph [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Huff as modified with an auxiliary power supply for the auxiliary refrigeration system separate from the power supply of the main refrigeration system, as taught by DelVentura, in order to provide a failsafe in case the main power supply malfunctions, thereby allowing the system to operate and provide cooling even in a situation where the main system fails.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments begin by addressing the 35 USC 112f interpretations made in the previous office action. Applicant asserts that the terms do not invoke 112f as they do not recite means. The Examiner disagrees, as the analysis is specifically made with regard to 112f terms that invoke 112f in the absence of means.
Applicant further addresses the 112 rejections in the previous office action. Applicant asserts that the amendments overcome the rejections, and further states that claim 11 should not be rejected under 112 by way of 112f interpretation because of the argument made with respect to the 112f interpretations. With regard to claim 11, the rejections are upheld as the 112f interpretations are maintained. Regarding claim 6, the Examiner agrees and withdraws the rejection.
Remainder of Applicant’s arguments are directed to the 35 USC 103 rejections of claim 1. Applicant argues that Huff does not teach any variable of nominal maximal volume rate an auxiliary compressor to the nominal volume rate of the main compressors. Further, argues that the compressors of Huff makes no mention of relative sizes and that the compressors would have identical volume flows. The Examiner has considered the argument and respectfully finds the argument unpersuasive as it neglects the essence of the result-effective variable conditions, as the rejection relates that optimizing the two compressors of Huff is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art as it relates to optimization, not a missing structure of control feature. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached on (571)-270-5054. 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763