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 the product of Invention Group I, Firefighting Accessory Species A (Figs. 1-5), and Compartment Species B (Figs. 16-18) in the reply filed on 11/6/2025 in response to the requirement for restriction mailed 9/9/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/2/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in Fig. 2 the reference character “1620” is applied without a leader line. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 7, “the flow” should be revised to “a flow” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 1 Line 10, “its length; and” should be revised to “a length of the conduit body;” to ensure clarity in the claim and to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 7 Line 2, “the inlet of the conduit” should be revised to “an inlet of the conduit” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 10 Line 3, “between their deployed position and their retracted position” should be revised to “between a deployed position and a retracted position” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 11 Line 2, “to their deployed position” should be revised to “to the deployed position” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 12 Lines 1-2, “at least one or more barb members” should be revised to “the at least one or more barb members” to ensure proper grammar.
In Claim 12 Line 3, “their retracted position” should be revised to “a retracted position” to ensure clarity in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The “expanding arrangement” in Claim 1, which uses the generic placeholder “arrangement” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure for the recited function in Claim 1; and
The “biasing arrangement” in Claim 10, which uses the generic placeholder “arrangement” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure for the recited function in Claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “expanding arrangement” in Claim 1 corresponds to the disclosure in Paragraph 0092 of the Specification which states, “The firefighting accessory 1000 further includes an expanding arrangement in the form of a reconfigurable barb arrangement 1200”. Furthermore, dependent Claim 2 states “wherein the expanding arrangement is a barb arrangement”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “expanding arrangement” in Claim 1 to be a barb arrangement and equivalents thereof.
The “biasing arrangement” in Claim 10 corresponds to Paragraph 0095 of the Specification which states “The biasing arrangement 1500 includes an elastic ring member 1510 that extends around the outer periphery of the plurality of barb members, and is located within a channel 1520 located on an outer surface of each of the barb members 1220 towards a fore end of each barb member.”. Furthermore, Paragraph 0097 of the Specification states “It is envisaged that a wide variety of biasing arrangements could be used to bias the barb members to their deployed position. As an example, in alternative embodiments leaf springs, helical springs or the like could be used acting in either compression or tension.”. Due to usage of the term “or the like” in the Specification, it is not clear what exact corresponding structure is to be considered for performing the entire function of the claimed biasing arrangement. Therefore, for the purpose of examination the “biasing arrangement” in Claim 10 will be interpreted as being any structure capable of biasing a barb member between a deployed position and a retracted position.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The examiner notes that the term “tensioning arrangement” in Claim 1 is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim recites sufficient structure of “a closure configured for threaded engagement with the thread formations on the conduit body”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-11 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.
Claim 8 is indefinite because Lines 1-2 state “wherein the barb members are reconfigurable between a retracted position and a deployed position” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the barb members” in the claim. Claim 4 from which Claim 8 depends states “at least one or more barb members”. Therefore, it is not clear if Claim 8 requires that there are multiple barb members or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 8 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “wherein the one or more barb members are reconfigurable between a retracted position and a deployed position”.
Claim 9 is indefinite because Lines 1-2 state “wherein at least one or more of the barb members are pivotable relative to the conduit body” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the barb members” in the claim. Claim 4 from which Claim 9 depends states “at least one or more barb members”. Therefore, it is not clear if Claim 9 requires that there are multiple barb members or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 9 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “wherein at least one barb member of the at least one or more barb members are pivotable relative to the conduit body”.
Claim 10 is indefinite because the limitation “a biasing arrangement” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The “biasing arrangement” in Claim 10 appears to correspond to Paragraph 0095 of the Specification which states “The biasing arrangement 1500 includes an elastic ring member 1510 that extends around the outer periphery of the plurality of barb members, and is located within a channel 1520 located on an outer surface of each of the barb members 1220 towards a fore end of each barb member.”. Furthermore, Paragraph 0097 of the Specification states “It is envisaged that a wide variety of biasing arrangements could be used to bias the barb members to their deployed position. As an example, in alternative embodiments leaf springs, helical springs or the like could be used acting in either compression or tension.”. Due to usage of the term “or the like” in the Specification, it is not clear what exact corresponding structure is to be considered for performing the entire function of the claimed biasing arrangement. 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. For the purpose of examination the “biasing arrangement” in Claim 10 will be interpreted as being any structure capable of biasing a barb member between a deployed position and a retracted position.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 10 is also indefinite because Lines 2-3 state “for biasing at least one or more of the barb member between their deployed position and their retracted position” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the barb members” in the claim. Claim 4 from which Claim 10 depends states “at least one or more barb members”. Therefore, it is not clear if Claim 10 requires that there are multiple barb members or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 10 Lines 2-3 will be interpreted to state “for biasing at least one barb member or the one or barb members between a deployed position and a retracted position”.
Claim 11 depends from Claim 10, therefore Claim 11 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite since Claim 10 from which it depends is indefinite.
Claim 11 is also indefinite because Lines 1-2 state “wherein at least one or more of the barb members are biased to their deployed position” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the barb members” in the claim. Claim 4 from which Claim 11 depends states “at least one or more barb members”. Therefore, it is not clear if Claim 11 requires that there are multiple barb members or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 11 Lines 1-2 will be interpreted to state “wherein at least one barb member of the one or more barb members are biased to the deployed position”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 5,575,340 to Williams (“Williams”) in view of US PGPUB 2013/0037281 A1 to Szentimrey et al. (“Szentimrey”).
As to Claim 1, Williams discloses a firefighting accessory (See Figs. 3-4) for use in fighting a fire through an aperture (#10) in a bulkhead (#14, #16, and #18), the firefighting accessory comprising:
a. a securing arrangement adapted for securing the firefighting accessory at or towards the aperture in the bulkhead (See Figs. 3-5), the securing arrangement including:
a conduit body (#20) including a fore end and a rear end (See Annotated Fig. 5) and defining a conduit for the flow of firefighting agent (See Annotated Fig. 5 and See Col. 5 Lines 25-50 disclosing that a hose is inserted through #20 or attached to #20 to flow inert gas, thus #20 is for flow of firefighting agent), the conduit body being configured for extending the fore end through the aperture, in use (See Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 5); and
an expanding arrangement (#22, which is structure that is equivalent to a barb arrangement as shown in Figs. 3-4) movable between
a retracted configuration in which the expanding arrangement can be at least partially inserted through the aperture with the conduit body in use (See Annotated Fig. 5 and Col. 4 Lines 30-35), and
a deployed configuration in which the expanding arrangement is not movable through the aperture in use (See Annotated Fig. 4 and Col. 4 Lines 35-40); and
a tensioning arrangement (See Annotated Fig. 5, the tensioning arrangement is made up of #24, #28, and #G) including a closure (#24 and #G), the tensioning arrangement being configured for tensioning the conduit body between the expanding arrangement and the closure in use (See Figs. 3-4 and Col. 3 Lines 45-65); and
b. a connector (See V in Fig. 6) configured for connection to a source of fire extinguishing agent (See Col. 5 Lines 25-50 disclosing that #T is attached to #20 to flow inert gas, thus #V is fluidly connected to a source of fire extinguishing agent that provides inert gas via #T. See #IG in Fig. 9);
c. wherein the firefighting accessory is configured for guiding firefighting agent through the aperture to fight the fire in operation (See Col. 5 Lines 50-58).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams as applied to Claim 1 above, Williams does not specifically disclose wherein the conduit body includes thread formations at least partly along its length and wherein the closure is configured for threaded engagement with the thread formations on the conduit body (Col. 3 Lines 45-65 disclose multiple bolts #28 being screwed through #24, but based on Fig 4, the conduit body does not have any threads.).
However, Szentimrey discloses, in the same field of endeavor of fire extinguishing (See Paragraph 0002) a firefighting accessory (See Fig. 8) for use in fighting a fire through an aperture (See Annotated Fig. 8) in a bulkhead (#14), the firefighting accessory comprising:
a. a securing arrangement adapted for securing the firefighting accessory at or towards the aperture in the bulkhead (See Annotated Fig. 8), the securing arrangement including:
a conduit body including a fore end and a rear end and defining a conduit for the flow of firefighting agent (See Annotated Fig. 8), the conduit body being configured for extending the fore end through the aperture (See Annotated Fig. 8), in use, the conduit body including thread formations at least partly along its length (See Annotated Fig. 8);
an expanding arrangement (#68, which is a structure formed as a barb shape and is at least capable of expanding when compressed); and
a tensioning arrangement (#89 and #87) including a closure (#89) configured for threaded engagement with the thread formations on the conduit body (See Annotated Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0027), the tensioning arrangement being configured for tensioning the conduit body between the expanding arrangement and the closure in use (See Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0027); and
b. a connector (#42) configured for connection to a source of fire extinguishing agent (#22, See Paragraph 0020);
c. wherein the firefighting accessory is configured for guiding firefighting agent through the aperture to fight the fire in operation (See Paragraph 0028).
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 the firefighting accessory of Williams as applied to Claim 1 above such that the conduit body includes thread formations at least partly along its length and wherein the closure is configured for threaded engagement with the thread formations on the conduit body by applying threads on the conduit body of Williams and using the tensioning arrangement of Szentimrey in place of the tensioning arrangement of Williams since doing so would yield the predictable result of securing the firefighting accessory to the bulkhead upon tightening of a single nut (See Szentimrey Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0027).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 1 above, Williams further discloses wherein the expanding arrangement is a barb arrangement (See Fig. 4 and Annotated Fig. 5, the expanding arrangement made up of #22 is structure that is equivalent to a barb arrangement).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 1 above, Williams further discloses wherein the connector is configured for connection to one or more selected from a firefighting hose, and a pressurised vessel of fire extinguishing agent (See Col. 5 Lines 9-50, the connector #V can be fluidly connected to another segment of hose #T and can be fluidly connected to #IG, which is a pressurized vessel of inert gas).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 2 above, Williams further discloses wherein the barb arrangement includes a barb body and at least one or more barb members (See Annotated Fig. 5, the barb arrangement is made up of two barb bodies and two barb members).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 1 above, Williams further discloses wherein the firefighting accessory includes a nozzle (See Annotated Fig. 5 and Col. 5 Lines 50-58, an outlet of the firefighting accessory is equivalent to a nozzle that is a projecting tube to direct fluid flow).
As to Claim 6, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 1 above, Williams further discloses wherein the firefighting accessory includes a hose (See Fig. 13 and See Col. 5 Lines 9-50 disclosing that #T can be a hose and can be connected to additional segments of tubing that are hoses).
As to Claim 7, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 6 above, Williams further discloses wherein the hose is attached or attachable to the inlet of the conduit (See Annotated Fig. 4, Col. 4 Lines 7-10, and Col. 5 Lines 9-50, the hose is fluidly attached to an inlet of the conduit via #32).
As to Claim 8, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 4 above, Williams further discloses wherein the barb members are reconfigurable between a retracted position and a deployed position (See Annotated Fig. 4 and See Annotated Fig. 5 and See Col. 4 Lines 30-40).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 4 above, Williams further discloses wherein at least one or more of the barb members are pivotable relative to the conduit body (See Annotated Fig. 4, Annotated Fig. 5, and See Col. 4 Lines 30-40).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 4 above, Williams further discloses wherein the firefighting accessory includes a biasing arrangement for biasing at least one or more of the barb members between their deployed position and their retracted position (See Col. 3 Lines 40-46 and 55-60 disclosing that #22 are biased outwardly, thus some biasing arrangement structure is part of the firefighting accessory that biases #22 between the position shown in Fig. 4 and the position shown in Fig. 5).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 10 above, Williams further discloses wherein at least one or more of the barb members are biased to their deployed position (See Col. 3 Lines 40-46 and 55-60 and See Annotated Fig. 4).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 4 above, Williams further discloses wherein at least one or more barb members are receivable within channels in the conduit body when the at least one or more barb members are in their retracted position (See Annotated Fig. 3 and See Annotated Fig. 5).
As to Claim 13, in reference to the firefighting accessory of Williams in view of Szentimrey as applied to Claim 1 above, Williams as modified by Szentimrey further discloses wherein the closure is configured for closing the aperture in the bulkhead (See Williams Figs. 3-4and See Szentimrey Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
788
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
496
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
518
614
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1002
932
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. 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 EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 November 19, 2025