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 Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed February 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect the rejection of claims 1,4,9, 11, 12, 16 and 20 as being anticipated by Cornell (US WO 2017105387 A1), applicant argues that the examiner has failed to make a prima facie case of anticipation for claim 1. Applicant’s arguments in response to the elastic flexible rod enabling 360 radial flexing and omnidirectional counter-oscillation as claimed is noted, but are moot in view of the further applied structure of previously cited Cornell teaching this element, as discussed below in the rejections below.
2. Regarding applicant’s argument that Cornell’s planar damper fails to address “a specific, long-recognized problem in basketball goal assemblies: minimizing multi-directional vibrations that leverage against the pole base and delay return to a static state, as required by rules such as the NCAA's four-second limit” as stated in applicant’s specification, Cornell discloses the tuned mass damper may use magnetic damping to accelerate damping of the basketball goal assembly to a normal static state after an impact (see Abstract). As such, this prior art reference maintains relevancy as it aims to address the same problem as the instant application.
3. Regarding applicant’s arguments for claims 2 and 17, applicant argues that the hollow end of the pole in Hege would not be able to facilitate the installation of the damper of Cornell. However, Cornell teaches support pole 1002 which are hollow and allow for the tuned mass damper to be mounted internally. As such, Cornell discloses applicant’s claims as such and this is further expanded below in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection.
4. Regarding claim 3, applicant’s argument that Cornell doesn’t explicitly teach the “flexible rod is made of rubber and/or urethane”, however Cornell teaches an alternate dampening mechanism with a mass suspended or encapsulated within a rubber piece or between rubber cables, as later discussed. Therefore, Cornell teaches the limitation of claim 3.
5. Regarding claim 5, In response to applicant's argument that combining the housing of Cornell with Jesch's top wall would not yield the claimed top and bottom covers operatively coupled without inhibiting radial movement of the elastic rod and mass, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). As such, adding the top cover of Jesch is for protection, not physically incorporating parts of either device to make up something that wouldn't work. Therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness is made.
6. Regarding claim 6, applicant argues that the "easy attachment" of Elpers j-bolt is generic and does not explain why one skilled in the art would modify Cornell's rigid mounting for the claimed precise, rotatable clamping that secures against vertical movement in a vibrating environment. Elpers does, however, teach the template 12 with an alignment feature comprised of tabs 15 that have wings 16 [0030]. The angled aspect of the wings 16 provides a gripping function to hold the anchor bolts in position, as described below. In one specific embodiment, the wings are arranged at an angle of 20-40° relative to the horizontal plane of the plate portion 14. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As such, this alignment feature is analogous to the “j-bolt configured to clamp to a crossarm bolt” and satisfies the perpendicular positioning and secure movement against the base as claimed.
7. Regarding claim 7, applicant argues that the flanges 19 and 19’ of Engle et al. fail to allow rotational precision of the j-bolt required for vibration resistance. However, the flanges of Engle et al. have a pivot shaft 12. Shaft 12 extends through corresponding flanges 22, 22' of mounting frame 11 and is spacedly maintained by enlarged diameter portions or sleeves 23, 23' which abut the inner face of flanges 22, 22'. Thus, frame 10 is free to rotate relative to frame 11 on the transverse pivot axis defined by shaft 12, while accurately locating frame 11 for precise movement relative to frame 10 [col 3, lines 54-62). This specified rotation and precise movement is analogous to the claim, rendering Engle et al. relevant.
8. Regarding claim 8, applicant’s argues that the wedge of Thompson et al. operates in a linear, one-axis manner for static anchoring, unrelated to tightening wedges outward on a damper base to increase width and clamp within a goal post top end against multi-directional vibrations (specification, page 9, lines 5-15; Figure 10). Again, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thompson et al.’s wedge performs the same function as claimed; “effectively increasing the width of the base to clamp it within the top end of the goal post,” rendering the combination proper.
9. Regarding claim 10, applicant argues that Cornell in view of Anderson fails to teach a configuration in the base of the damper for receiving the lower end of the elastic flexible rod for radial support and oscillation. However, Cornell teaches base or mounting block 20 (see Fig.3) with a conductor plate 30 extending upward from it (pg.8, lines 21-22). As such, it is understood that the conductor plate is held within the base via a cavity/opening, thereby appreciating the claim limitation. In view of this, this opening would be able to perform the claimed function, as applicant uses “configured to support” and this is a functional limitation. In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114.
10. Regarding claims 13-15 and 19, applicant’s arguments regarding the radial flexing and counter-oscillation for 360 rotation via the flexible rod as claimed are noted, but are moot in view of further applied structure of Cornell. See rejections below for a complete analysis.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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.
1. Claims 1-4, 9-12, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Cornell (WO 2017105387 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cornell teaches A damper for a basketball goal assembly (An example tuned mass damper 10 usable with a basketball goal assembly is illustrated in detail in FIGS. 3-6, pg.8, lines 11-12), comprising: a base selectively attachable to a top end of a goal post of a basketball goal assembly (A TMD base or mounting block 20 can be used to mount the tuned mass damper 10 to the basketball goal assembly, see Fig.7A); an elastic flexible rod((items 30,34,40) extending vertically from the base (see Fig.3), wherein an upper end of the flexible rod is configured to flex radially at any angle within 360 degrees in an x-y plane perpendicular to a central vertical axis of the flexible rod (Flexures 40 define a pivot axis adjacent lower ends 42. Flexures 40 are typically perpendicular to plate 30, and aligned with the center of plate 30. The movement of the moving mass is within the limits defined by the radial length and degree of bending in flexures 40. Plate 30 may have an arcuately curved upper edge 32 to accommodate the radial movement of the moving mass (m), pg.9, lines 14-17) and the elastic flexible rod comprises a material enabling omnidirectional flexing to align with multi-directional impact forces (An alternate damping mechanism can incorporate a mass suspended between springs or a spring or within an elastic type of material, such as a mass suspended or encapsulated within a rubber piece or between rubber cables, pg. 13, lines 1-2. The rubber piece or rubber cables are analogous to the elastic flexible rod, and being made up of rubber constitutes a material enabling omnidirectional flexing to align with multi-directional impact forces); and a weighted mass (m) coupled to the upper end of the flexible rod (see Fig.2); wherein upon an impact force being applied to the basketball assembly, the weighted mass and the upper end of the flexible rod oscillate in counterpoint to the basketball goal assembly in an x-z plane defined by the direction of impact and the central vertical axis of the flexible rod to dampen vibration of the basketball goal assembly (Some embodiments of a basketball goal assembly include a basketball backboard and rim assembly and a tuned mass damper operatively mounted to said backboard and rim assembly to dampen vibration of the assembly. An example embodiment of the tuned mass damper includes a conductor plate arranged normal to the plane of the basketball backboard, a pair of flexures arranged on opposing sides of the conductor plate, and a moving mass extending over the conductor plate and mounted to the pair of flexures, see Summary, lines 9-15).
Regarding claim 2, Cornell teaches wherein the goal post has a hollow top end and the base is installed in the top end of the goal post: In poles which are hollow and which have a sufficient internal diameter, the tuned mass damper 10 can be mounted internally to the pole, optionally with portions protruding upward from the pole, as illustrated in FIG. 7A (pg.11, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Cornell teaches wherein the flexible rod is made of rubber and/or urethane (An alternate damping mechanism can incorporate a mass suspended between springs or a spring or within an elastic type of material, such as a mass suspended or encapsulated within a rubber piece or between rubber cables, pg. 13, lines 1-2. The rubber piece or rubber cables are analogous to the flexible rod).
Regarding claim 4, Cornell teaches wherein the damper includes a cover secured to the post of the basketball goal assembly and configured to surround and protect at least the flexible rod and the weighted mass of the damper without inhibiting the radial movement of the flexible rod and the weighted mass: As illustrated in FIG. 7B, optionally, yet preferably, the upper end 1004 of pole 1002 and the tuned mass damper 10 may be enclosed within a cover 72 or housing, which may include a portion 74 which extends forward or rearward to accommodate the displacement movement of the moving mass (pg. 11, lines 9-12). See item 72, in Fig. 7B below.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
498
341
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9, 11, Cornell teaches a plate 30 attached to the lower plate portion 34 via fasteners as stated in the description. This is also seen below in Fig 4, where Cornell’s invention attaches two parts via fasteners in the same manner as the claimed invention. As such, this can be applied to attachment of the respective parts mentioned in claims 9 (flexible rod attached to the base) and 11 (weighted mass attached to the flexible rod) via fasteners.
Fig 4 of Cornell’s invention showing the fasteners connecting the upper plate 30 to lower plate 34
Regarding claim 10, Cornell teaches base or mounting block 20 (see Fig.3) with a conductor plate 30 extending upward from it (pg.8, lines 21-22). As such, it is understood that the conductor plate is held within the base via a cavity/opening, thereby appreciating wherein the base includes a cavity configured to support and receive a lower end of the flexible rod. In view of this, this opening would be able to perform the claimed function, as applicant uses configured to support and this is a functional limitation. In short, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 12, Cornell further teaches wherein the weighed mass includes a bore configured to receive the upper end of the flexible rod: Cornell teaches a weighted mass (as used in claim 1) that has an opening as seen in Fig.3 below. It performs the same function as the bore described in the claim, therefore the limitation is anticipated.
PNG
media_image3.png
317
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig 3 of the prior art depicting an opening ) in the weighted mass (m) analogous to the bore in the weighted mass of the claim.
Regarding claim 16, the weighted mass and flexible rod structural limitations are anticipated (as described above in claim 1); no new structural limitations are introduced. The intended use aspects of an elastic flexible rod (items 30,34,40) and the weighted mass (m), as stated in the claim, are met with the flexible nature of the flexures 40 of Cornell’s invention and the dampening capabilities of the weighted mass and flexible rod combination. As such, the limitations and the intended use of those limitations, respectively, are anticipated by Cornell (also in the same manner as described in claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Cornell further teaches the kit of claim 16 comprising a base (mounting block 20) installable in a hollow top end of the goal post (In poles which are hollow and which have a sufficient internal diameter, the tuned mass damper 10 can be mounted internally to the pole, optionally with portions protruding upward from the pole, as illustrated in FIG. 7A, pg.11, lines 1-3), and wherein a lower end of the flexible rod (30,34,40) is attachable to the base (Lower ends 42 of flexures 40 are secured to mounting block 20, pg.9, lines 2-3) to secure the flexible rod to the goal post (see Fig.8)
Regarding claim 20, Cornell further teaches wherein the kit comprising a cover connectable to the base and/or the top end of the goal post configured to surround and protect at least the flexible rod and the weighted mass of the damper without inhibiting the movement of the flexible rod and the weighted mass: As illustrated in FIG. 7B, optionally, yet preferably, the upper end 1004 of pole 1002 and the tuned mass damper 10 may be enclosed within a cover 72 or housing, which may include a portion 74 which extends forward or rearward to accommodate the displacement movement of the moving mass (pg. 11, lines 9-12). See item 72, in Fig. 7B above in regards to claim 4.
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.
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.
1. Claim 5 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cornell in view of Jesch et al. (US 20040209714 A1), hereinafter Jesch.
Regarding claim 5, Cornell teaches a cover comprises a bottom cover (cover 72, as applied in claim 4) that is a bottom portion which is on the upper part 1004 of pole 1002, but lacks teaching a top cover, wherein the top cover is operatively coupled to the bottom cover; and wherein the bottom cover is operatively coupled to the top end of the post of the basketball goal assembly and/or the base of the damper. Jesch teaches a shell 54 which includes a top wall 56.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the bottom cover of Cornell with the Jesch’s shell (with a top cover), creating a two-piece cover assembly to better protect the damper and absorb impact loads without fracture or failure (Jesch, [0030]).
2. Claim 6 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cornell in view of Elpers (US 20210123258 A1).
Regarding claim 6, while Cornell teaches wherein the base is selectively attachable to the top end of the goal post (There are various options for mounting a tuned mass damper 10 to a basketball goal assembly such as assembly 1000. In certain embodiments, the tuned mass damper is mounted adjacent an upper end 1004 of a support pole 1002, pg. 10, lines 31-31), it fails to teach by a j-bolt configured to clamp to a crossarm bolt of the basketball goal assembly by rotating about its central axis such that a lateral arm of the j-bolt is positioned perpendicular relative to the crossarm bolt to secure the base against vertical movement within the goal post.
Elpers teaches this as follows: The template 12 with an alignment feature comprised of tabs 15 that have wings 16. The angled aspect of the wings 16 provides a gripping function to hold the anchor bolts in position, as described below. In one specific embodiment, the wings are arranged at an angle of 20-40° relative to the horizontal plane of the plate portion 14 [0030]. A template for alignment of anchor bolts, which can be J-bolts. The template includes a plate with openings corresponding to openings on a mounting flange of the post, each plate opening including an alignment feature for orienting an anchor bolt perpendicular to the bottom of the plate (see Abstract). As such, this alignment feature having a gripping function to hold the anchor bolts in position is analogous to a j-bolt configured to clamp to a crossarm bolt of the basketball goal assembly, and orienting an anchor bolt perpendicular to the bottom of the plate is analogous to the j-bolt is positioned perpendicular relative to the crossarm bolt to secure the base against vertical movement within the goal post. This satisfies the perpendicular positioning and prevention against vertical movement, as the anchor bolts are held in position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Cornell’s damper with the j-bolt configuration of Elpers invention to ensure that the base remains sturdily in place (Elpers, [0030]).
3. Claim 7 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cornell in view Elpers, further in view of Engle et al. (US 4438923 A), hereinafter Engle.
Regarding claim 7, while the modified Cornell teaches a base with a j-bolt (as discussed above in claim 6), it fails to teach that it includes a flange that acts as a backstop to ensure that the lateral arm of the j-bolt is rotated to a perpendicular position relative to the crossarm bolt, preventing over-rotation and ensuring precise alignment for vibration damping. Engle teaches this as follows: the flanges of Engle et al. have a pivot shaft 12. Shaft 12 extends through corresponding flanges 22, 22' of mounting frame 11 and is spacedly maintained by enlarged diameter portions or sleeves 23, 23' which abut the inner face of flanges 22, 22'. Thus, frame 10 is free to rotate relative to frame 11 on the transverse pivot axis defined by shaft 12, while accurately locating frame 11 for precise movement relative to frame 10 [col 3, lines 54-62). This specified rotation and precise movement is analogous preventing over-rotation and ensuring precise alignment for vibration damping.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the modified Cornell with the flanges of Engle to aid in precise and intentional movement (Engle, col 3, lines 59-62).
4. Claims 8,18 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cornell in view of Elpers, further in view of Thompson et al. (US 5838751 A), hereinafter Thompson.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Cornell (as used in claim 6) teaches wherein the base is further selectively attachable to the top end of the basketball goal assembly, however it fails to teach by one or more wedges configured to slide outward as they are tightened to the base, effectively increasing the width of the base to clamp it within the top end of the goal post. Thompson teaches a vertical expansion wedge that can slide on a guide tube (col 9, lines 27-30). The function of this wedge (sliding along a distance) is going to increase the width of the surface it’s on.
This appreciates the claimed language configured to slide outward as they are tightened to the base, effectively increasing the width of the base, as configured to slide outward is a functional limitation. The claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the modified Cornell’s damper with the wedges of Thompson to increase the width of the base in order to more securely attach the base to the goal post (Thompson, col 9, lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 18, the further modified Cornell (as discussed above in claim 6) with Thompson, teaches wherein the base comprises a j-bolt configured to vertically secure the base to a crossarm bolt of the basketball goal assembly (this alignment feature having a gripping function to hold the anchor bolts in position, Elpers, [0030]), and one or more wedges configured to slide outward as they are tightened to the base to horizontally secure the base within the top end of the goal post (a vertical expansion wedge that can slide on a guide tube, Thompson, col 9, lines 27-30).
5. Claims 13-15,19 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Cornell in view of Nye et al. (US 6824481 B1), hereinafter Nye.
Regarding claim 13, the structural limitations of this claim are the same as claim 1 with the additional limitation of a clamp. Cornell (as used in claim 1) teaches all the structural limitations, respectively but lacks a clamp. Nye teaches this as follows: as a way to attach the strike plate 112 to the rim assembly 82 by any suitable type of rim attachment feature, such as clips, clamps, cantilevered fastening posts, and the like (col 11, lines 22-24). As applicant uses configured to receive and hold, this is a functional limitation and the clamp of Nye would be able to perform the function as claimed; see MPEP 2114.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cornell’s damper with the clamp of Nye to attach to the base plate in order to increase security of the rod and the base plate in enhancing the dampening function of the assembly (Nye, col 11, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Cornell teaches wherein the flexible rod is made of rubber and/or urethane (An alternate damping mechanism can incorporate a mass suspended between springs or a spring or within an elastic type of material, such as a mass suspended or encapsulated within a rubber piece or between rubber cables, Cornell, pg. 13, lines 1-2. The rubber piece or rubber cables are analogous to the flexible rod).
Regarding claim 15, modified Cornell teaches wherein the damper includes a cover (Cornell, 72) configured to surround and protect at least the flexible rod and the weighted mass of the damper without inhibiting the radial movement of the flexible rod and the weighted mass: As illustrated in FIG. 7B, optionally, yet preferably, the upper end 1004 of pole 1002 and the tuned mass damper 10 may be enclosed within a cover 72 or housing, which may include a portion 74 which extends forward or rearward to accommodate the displacement movement of the moving mass (Cornell, pg. 11, lines 9-12). See item 72, in Fig. 7B of Cornell below.
PNG
media_image1.png
287
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, the modified Cornell teaches the kit of claim 16 comprising a clamp assembly installable adjacent a top end of the goal post (clamp type of rim attachment feature, Nye, col. 11, lines 22-24) and configured to secure a lower end of the flexible rod to the goal post; as discussed in previous claims, configured to secure a lower end of the flexible rod to the goal post is a functional limitation and the clamp of Nye would be able to perform the claimed function.
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 RIA SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-0286. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am- 5pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/RIA SHARMA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights