DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
This office action is in reply to the Amendment filed on November 5, 2025. Claims 4, 5, 9-12, 15, 17, 19 and 22 have been amended. Claims 23-26 have been added. No further claims have been cancelled. Claim interpretation previously made under 35 USC 112(f) is maintained. The previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection has been overcome however a new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is provided herewith and discussed in greater detail below. Claims 4-26 are currently pending and have been fully examined.
Claim Objections
The top of Claim page 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
It includes an amendment (see figure below) but it is not clear if this amendment is in the Specification or meant to be in one of the Claims. Appropriate correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
109
723
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 12-14 are Finally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Grote et al. (6546596) and optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715).
In reference to claims 4 and 12, Martinez discloses an improved telepole device (10), comprising:
an outer tube (see figure below) having first (i.e. lower end thereof) and second (i.e. upper end thereof) ends, said second end having attachment means (i.e. opening 24, which meets the limitation of the attachment means, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 7a above) for removably attaching a tool (i.e. tool 32 or 40 or 50 or 60, see Figures 2 and 5-7);
an inner tube (see figure below) having first (i.e. lower end thereof) and second (i.e. lower end thereof) ends, said first end of said inner tube including a portion (i.e. outer portion of the inner tube) for gripping said device, said second end of said inner tube slidably received within said first end of said outer tube (Figures 1 and 4);
said inner tube being at least partially hollow along its length (Figure 4); and
said inner tube having a smooth exterior surface without longitudinal grooves (see Figure 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
580
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Martinez lacks,
said inner tube having one or more reinforcement means/walls extending across said hollow portion of said inner tube.
However, Grote et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an inner tube (16) with one or more reinforcement walls (i.e. at left 26 or at right 26, Figure 4) extending across a hollow portion of said inner tube (Figure 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing an inner tube with the one or more reinforcement walls extending across a hollow portion of said inner tube, as taught by Grote et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile having additional rigidity and that more effectively resists to bending (see Column 6, Lines 30-37).
Finally, assuming arguendo, that hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, is not an equivalent structure to the holes as described in applicant’s PG-PUB (see paragraph 95), than Hetzner is hereby used for such a teaching.
Hetzner teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tubular sleeve (38) with more than one hole (not labeled but seen in Figure 2 and described in paragraph 25) for removably attaching a tool (2b, Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing more than one hole for removably attaching a tool, as taught by Hetzner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively connects/retains the tool to the tubular sleeve thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation (paragraphs 6, 9 and 25).
In reference to claim 5, Martinez discloses an improved telepole device (10), comprising:
an outer tube (see figure above) having first (i.e. lower end thereof) and second (i.e. upper end thereof) ends, said second end having attachment means (i.e. opening 24, which meets the limitation of the attachment means, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 7a above) for removably attaching a tool (i.e. tool 32 or 40 or 50 or 60, see Figures 2 and 5-7);
an inner tube (see figure above) having first (i.e. lower end thereof) and second (i.e. lower end thereof) ends, said first end of said inner tube including a portion (i.e. outer portion of the inner tube) for gripping said device, said second end of said inner tube slidably received within said first end of said outer tube (Figures 1 and 4);
said inner tube having a length and being at least partially hollow along its length (Figure 4), said inner tube having a non-grooved exterior surface (see Figure 1).
Martinez lacks,
said inner tube having at least one thickened wall portion formed in the inner tube and extending along at least a portion of said inner tube's length.
However, Grote et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an inner tube (16) with at least one thickened wall portion (i.e. at left 26 or at right 26, Figure 4) formed in the inner tube and extending along at least a portion of said inner tube's length (Figure 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing an inner tube with the one thickened wall portion, as taught by Grote et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile having additional rigidity and that more effectively resists to bending (see Column 6, Lines 30-37).
Finally, assuming arguendo, that hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, is not an equivalent structure to the holes as described in applicant’s PG-PUB (see paragraph 95), than Hetzner is hereby used for such a teaching.
Hetzner teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a tubular sleeve (38) with more than one hole (not labeled but seen in Figure 2 and described in paragraph 25) for removably attaching a tool (2b, Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the hole (24) for removably attaching the tool, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing more than one hole for removably attaching a tool, as taught by Hetzner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that more effectively connects/retains the tool to the tubular sleeve thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation (paragraphs 6, 9 and 25).
In reference to claim 7, Grote et al. disclose that said inner tube has a substantially round cross-sectional profile (Figure 4), and said one or more reinforcement walls are configured to maintain said round profile of said inner tube (Column 6, Lines 30-38).
In reference to claim 13, Grote et al. disclose that said reinforcement means including at least one thickened wall portion (26) formed in the inner tube (Figure 4) and extending along at least a portion of said inner tube's length (Figure 2).
In reference to claim 14, Grote et al. disclose that said reinforcement means including at least one reinforced wall portion (26) of a cross-section of the inner tube extending along at least a portion of said inner tube's length (Figures 2 and 4).
Claims 6 and 21 are Finally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Grote et al. (6546596), optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715) and further in view of Margid (6749227).
In reference to claim 6, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
said inner tube element being configured to readily slide within said outer tube element to a selected position along the length of the outer tube, and wherein a locking detent is configured to temporarily lock the inner tube at that position within the outer tube.
However, Margid teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an inner tube element (i.e. at 18 and note while Figure 1 shows element 18 as being an outer tube, Margid also teaches that the poles can be configured in an opposite configuration, see Column 4, Lines 6-15, thus providing tube 18 as the inner tube and tube 22 as the outer tube) that is configured to readily slide within an outer tube element (22) to a selected position along the length of the outer tube, and wherein a locking detent (i.e. at 50 or 26) is configured to temporarily lock the inner tube at that position within the outer tube (Column 4, Lines 25-52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing an inner tube with the locking detent that temporarily locks the inner tube at a position within the outer tube, as taught by Margid, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that adjustably and selectively locks the adjustable pole in a desired length (Column 1, Lines 11-13) and/or which is simpler to use and inexpensive to make (Column 1, Lines 29-32).
In reference to claim 21, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a grip is attached to the inner tube for a user to grasp and manipulate the apparatus.
However, Margid teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an inner tube element (i.e. at 18 and note while Figure 1 shows element 18 as being an outer tube, Margid also teaches that the poles can be configured in an opposite configuration, see Column 4, Lines 6-15, thus providing tube 18 as the inner tube and tube 22 as the outer tube) having a grip (15) attached thereto for a user to grasp and manipulate the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing an inner tube having the grip attached thereto, as taught by Margid, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device that allows a user to more effectively grasp the device during normal operation (Column 3, Lines 36-38).
Claim 8, is Finally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Grote et al. (6546596), optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715) and further in view of Park (KR 100969410, previously cited).
In reference to claim 8, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, and Grote et al. further disclose additional reinforcement walls (i.e. one of the other walls 26, Figure 4) are provided which cross at least a portion of the inner tube's inner profile (Figure 4).
Modified Martinez lacks having the,
additional reinforcement walls…intersect with each other within the hollow inner portion of the tube.
[AltContent: textbox (Another half of adjacent portion 161 )]However, Park teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide an inner tube element (160/162, Figures 1 and 10) with additional reinforcement walls (i.e. at 163 or under a second interpretation at 163 and half of adjacent portions 161 directly attached thereto, see figure below) that intersect with each other (i.e. at 161 or under a second interpretation at the connection between the half portion 161, see figure below) within a hollow inner portion of the tube (Figure 10).
[AltContent: textbox (Point of intersection between portions 161)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Half of adjacent portion 161 half of adjacent portions 161 half of adjacent portion 161)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval][AltContent: textbox (Another half of adjacent portion 161 )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image3.png
206
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the additional reinforcement walls, of modified Martinez, with the known technique of providing additional reinforcement walls…that intersect with each other within the hollow inner portion of the tube, as taught by Margid, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile device having greater flexural rigidity in a small cross-sectional area (see following portion of translation disclosing that; “Therefore…160 is a cross-sectional shape to obtain a greater flexural rigidity in a small cross-sectional area.”).
Claims 9-11 are Finally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Grote et al. (6546596), optionally further in view of Hetzner (2008/0156715) and further in view of Fenstemaker (2010/0192738).
In reference to claim 9, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a collar adjacent said first end of said outer tube.
However, Fenstemaker teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (30 and 32, Figure 3B) including a collar element (at 34 or at 72/70, Figure 3B) that is adjacent to a first end (i.e. left end thereof) of an outer tube (30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the telescoping tubes, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing telescoping tubes including the collar located adjacent to a first end of an outer tube, as taught by Fenstemaker, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile that more effectively configures the length of the device at essentially any length between a minimum length dimension and a maximum length dimension (see paragraph 26).
In reference to claim 10, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
an external locking device by which a user can selectively adjust the length of the telepole.
However, Fenstemaker teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (30 and 32, Figure 3B) including an external locking device (at 34 or at 72/70, Figure 3B) by which a user can selectively adjust the length of the telepole (paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the telescoping tubes, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing telescoping tubes including the external locking, as taught by Fenstemaker, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile that more effectively configures the length of the device at essentially any length between a minimum length dimension and a maximum length dimension (see paragraph 26).
In reference to claim 11, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
an internal locking device by which a user can selectively adjust the length of the telepole.
However, Fenstemaker teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (30 and 32) including an inner tube (32) containing an internal locking device (46, paragraph 30 and Figure 3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing an inner tube with the internal locking device, as taught by Fenstemaker, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile that more effectively configures the length of the device at essentially any length between a minimum length dimension and a maximum length dimension (see paragraph 26).
Claims 15-19 and 22-25 are Finally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Grote et al. (6546596).
In reference to claim 15, Martinez discloses an apparatus (Figure 1) capable/for cleaning swimming pools and similar bodies of water, including a tubular handle (20) attached to a pool cleaning tool (30/32 or 40 or 50 or 60, Figures 2 and 5-7), wherein the handle is at least partially hollow (Figures 3 and 4), and said tubular handle has a smooth exterior surface without longitudinal grooves (Figure 1).
Martinez lacks,
a reinforcing device affixed to said handle to increase said handle's bending strength.
However, Grote et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (12 and 16) including a handle (16) having a reinforcing device (i.e. at left 26 or at right 26, Figure 4) affixed to said handle to increase said handle's bending strength (Figure 2-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the handle, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing a handle having the reinforcing device, as taught by Grote et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile having additional rigidity and that more effectively resists to bending (see Column 6, Lines 30-37).
In reference to claim 16, Grote et al. disclose that said reinforcing device is inserted into the hollow portion of the handle (Figure 4) to provide reinforcement for the handle (Column 6, Lines 30-38).
In reference to claims 17 and 22, Martinez discloses an improved tube for use with pool cleaning tools (30/32 or 40 or 50 or 60, Figures 2 and 5-7), including an extended hollow tubular body (20), said tube having a non-grooved exterior surface (Figure 1) and at least a portion of said hollow tubular body having a cross-section, said cross-section defining a smooth exterior surface (Figure 1).
Martinez lacks,
said cross-section having at least a wall portion thereof that is thickened compared to at least one portion adjacent to said thickened portion.
However, Grote et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (12 and 16) including a tube (16) comprising a cross-section (Figure 4) having at least a wall portion (at left 26 or at right 26) thereof that is thickened (because it is formed form the combined thicknesses of element 26 and 22) compared to at least one portion (i.e. thickness of portion 22 or thickness of portion 24 in annotated Figure 4 below) adjacent to said thickened portion (Column 6, Lines 26-39).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (At least one portion adjacent to said thickened portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Thickened wall portion)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
509
775
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing a tube having the thickened wall portion, as taught by Grote et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile having additional rigidity and that more effectively resists to bending (see Column 6, Lines 30-37).
In reference to claim 18, Grote et al. disclose that the tube has a length (Figure 1), and said thickened portion extends along at least a portion of the length of the tube (see Figure 2 showing 26 extending longitudinally within the length of the tube).
In reference to claim 19, Martinez discloses an improved tube (Figure 1) for use with tools (30/32 or 40 or 50 or 60, Figures 2 and 5-7), including an extended hollow tubular body (20), at least a portion of said hollow tubular body having a cross-section (Figure 1), said cross- section defining a smooth exterior surface (Figure 1).
Martinez lacks,
said cross-section having at least one reinforcement wall across said hollow tubular cross-section.
However, Grote et al. teach that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide telescoping tubes (12 and 16) including an extended hollow tubular body (16), at least a portion of said hollow tubular body having a cross-section (Figure 4), said cross-section having at least one reinforcement wall (26) across said hollow tubular cross-section (Figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the tubular body, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing a tubular body having the reinforcing wall, as taught by Grote et al., and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile having additional rigidity and that more effectively resists to bending (see Column 6, Lines 30-37).
In reference to claim 23, Grote et al. show that said at least one reinforcement wall (at left 26 or at right 26) is solid and without holes therein (Figure 4).
In reference to claim 24, Grote et al. show that said thickened portion (at left 26 or at right 26) is not perforated (Figure 4).
In reference to claim 25, Grote et al. show that said tube (16) defines a circular sidewall (16) and said thickened portion (at left 26 or at right 26) is a portion of said circular sidewall (Figure 4).
Claim 20, is Finally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Grote et al. (6546596) and Hetzner (2008/0156715).
In reference to claim 20, Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
said second end of said outer tube having at least two holes for receiving an attachment means to removably attach a swimming pool cleaning tool to said outer tube.
However, Hetzner teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second end of a tube (38) with at least two holes (52A and 54A) for receiving an attachment means (i.e. spring-loaded buttons 48A and 48B), which meets the limitation of the attachment means, as previously interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), see section 7b above) to removably attach a swimming pool cleaning tool (10) to said tube (Figures 2, 3 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the single hole of the tube, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing a tube with the at least two holes, as taught by Hetzner, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile that more effectively secures the tube to the tool (see paragraph 33) thereby preventing any unwanted disconnection during normal operation.
Claim 26, Finally rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Martinez (6450557) in view of Grote et al. (6546596) and Varga (6213672).
In reference to claim 26, modified Martinez discloses the claimed invention as previously mentioned above, but lacks,
a plug engaged with said at least one reinforcement wall.
However, Varga teaches that it is old and well known in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a telescopic pole (Figure 1) having an inner tubular body (22, which is similar to the inner tubular body 16 that previously included the at least one reinforcement wall 26, as previously taught by Grote et al.) having a plug (42) that is engaged (engaged at least through the connection of parts therebetween or is engaged with said at least one reinforcement wall because the at least one reinforcement wall extends “inside the extension pole 16 formed with the remainder of the extruded shape” and because Varga further teaches that plug 42 “can be introduced into the pole cavity by any means of method suitable or known in the art.” Thus, if injection molding was used, the foam plug 42 would cover or wrap around the reinforcement wall thereby engaging the wall) with said at least one reinforcement wall.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the inner tubular body, of Martinez, with the known technique of providing an inner tubular body having the plug therein, as taught by Varga, and the results would have been predictable. In this situation, one could provide a more advantageous and versatile that provides enough buoyancy to make it float in water (Column 5, Lines 58-63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter as specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant does contend that, “As shown above, Grote's internal tube 16 and related functionality is significantly different than certain claimed embodiments of Applicant's inventions. Grote discloses an interior tube 16 with a keyway 20 and tab 54 extending into that keyway. In certain of Applicant's amended claims, (a) the exterior of Applicant's claimed tube must be smooth and/or non-grooved, and/or (b) Applicant's tube defines a circular sidewall and the claimed thickened portion is a portion of that circular sidewall (see Claims 15, 17, 19, 22, and 25, for example). In addition, certain of Applicant's dependent claims require that the reinforced wall or thickened portion not have holes or perforations (see Claims 23 and 24, for example). These limitations further distinguish Applicant's claims from Grote '596.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The combination above does not use Grote et al. for the teaching of providing a smooth or non-grooved exterior surface to a pole but rather has been used for providing a tube having the inner reinforced wall or thickened portion as previously discussed above, therefore these arguments are considered moot.
Additionally, the claimed thickened portion (at left 26 or at right 26), as taught by Grote et al., is a portion of that circular sidewall (16) because it extends inwardly therefrom (see Figure 4 or the figure on page 16 above) thereby meeting the limitations of the claims.
Finally, the reinforced wall or thickened portion (26) also do not have holes (note left 26 is solid and right 26 is also solid) thereby meeting the limitations of the claims. Since, all of the limitations of the claims have been met the examiner believes that the rejection is proper.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Specifically, applicant further defined the exterior surface of the inner tube.
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 ROBERT J SCRUGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-2.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/ROBERT J SCRUGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723