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 Species D (Figs 23-26) in the reply filed on 2/28/2026 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 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 limitation(s) is/are: clutch mechanism in claim 1, 12 and adjustment mechanism in claims 6, 12. The examiner notes that the adjustment mechanism in the current specification includes a knob/tube #140 with a gripping or knurled surface (as see in Fig 10a-10b).
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.
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.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 13 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myers US 2014/0066931.
Regarding Claim 1, Myers discloses an external fixation system (Figs 1-2) for securing a first bone of a patient relative to a second bone of the patient (abstract), the external fixation system comprising:
a first bone anchoring body (#526, Fig 3-4) configured to be secured to the first bone (via pins #510 as seen in Fig 3-4);
a second bone anchoring body (#526, Fig 3-4, see Fig below) configured to be secured to the second bone (via pins #510 as seen in Fig 3-4, it is noted that the first and second bone anchoring bodies have the same configuration as seen in Figs 1-4); and
a first strut assembly (see Fig below) comprising:
a first end configured to be removably coupled to the first bone anchoring body (see Fig below, paragraph 81);
a second end configured to be removably coupled to the second bone anchoring body (see Fig below, paragraph 81);
an intermediate portion (see Fig below) that extends between the first end and the second end (see Fig below), the intermediate portion having a length that is adjustable (as seen in Fig 1-2); and
a clutch mechanism (#650, #604 and #611, Fig 8, paragraph 92-93, 95) that is movable between:
an unlocked position in which the clutch mechanism allows both increase and reduction in the length (paragraph 92 “unlocked configuration in which the second tubular member can freely translate relative the first tubular member”); and
a restricted position in which the clutch mechanism allows one of increase and reduction in the length while restricting the other of increase and reduction in the length (paragraph 92 “a locked configuration in which the second tubular member can freely translate relative to the first tubular member to increase the combined length of the external fixation system but is prevented from translating relative to the first tubular member to decrease the length of the external fixation system”).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Myers discloses a first strut attachment assembly that is attachable to the first bone anchoring body and to the first end of the first strut assembly (see Fig below, Fig in claim 1); and
a second strut attachment assembly that is attachable to the second bone anchoring body and to the second end of the first strut assembly (see Fig below, Fig in claim 1, it is noted that the first and second strut attachment assemblies have the same configuration).
PNG
media_image2.png
814
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Myers discloses the first end of the first strut assembly comprises a first sphere portion (see Fig in claim 2);
the second end of the first strut assembly comprises a second sphere portion (see Fig in claim 2);
the first bone anchoring body comprises a first arm (see Fig below);
the second bone anchoring body comprises a second arm (see Fig below, it is noted that the first and second bone anchoring bodies have the same configuration);
the first strut attachment assembly comprises:
a first fastener configured to secure the first strut attachment assembly to the first arm (see Fig below, paragraph 99); and
a first strut clamp assembly comprising a first clamp comprising a first inner clamp surface configured to receive and be tightened around the first sphere portion (see Fig below, Fig 3, 6, paragraph 100, tightened via bolt #530); and
the second strut attachment assembly (see Fig below, as noted above, the first and second strut attachment assemblies have the same configuration) comprises:
a second fastener configured to secure the second strut attachment assembly to the second arm (see Fig below, paragraph 99); and
a second strut clamp assembly comprising a second clamp comprising a second inner clamp surface configured to receive and be tightened around the second sphere portion (see Fig below, Fig 3, 6, paragraph 100, tightened via bolt #530).
PNG
media_image3.png
677
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Myers discloses the first strut clamp assembly is securable to the first arm by actuating only the first fastener (as seen in Fig 4 above in claim 3, paragraph 99, only the first fastener #522 secures the first arm to the first strut clamp assembly); and the second strut clamp assembly is securable to the second arm by actuating only the second fastener (as seen in Fig 4 above in claim 3, paragraph 99, only the second fastener #522 secures the second arm to the second strut clamp assembly).
Regarding Claim 6, Myers discloses the first strut assembly further comprises an adjustment mechanism operable independently of the clutch mechanism to adjust a length of the intermediate portion (paragraph 93, Fig 7-8 where the adjustment mechanism is made up of textured surface #612 and/or #61, where it is able to be grasped by a user to adjust the length of the intermediate portion, where the adjustment mechanism #612 and/or #614 can be pulled or pushed to adjust the length of the intermediate portion, which operate independent off the clutch mechanism, it is noted that the adjustment mechanism may be grasped when coupled to or not coupled to the bone anchoring bodies, see Fig 2-3)(examiner notes that that the textured surfaces of Myers is a substantial equivalent to textured knob #140 of the invention).
Regarding Claim 8, Myers discloses the clutch mechanism is further movable to a locked position in which the clutch mechanism does not allow variation in the length (paragraph 95 where #604 is rotated to move #611 to fully lock in the length of the strut).
Regarding Claim 11, Myers discloses a second strut assembly (#508, Fig 2) comprising:
a third end configured to be removably coupled to the first bone anchoring body (see Fig below, Fig in claim 1);
a fourth end configured to be removably coupled to the second bone anchoring body (see Fig below, Fig in claim 1); and
a second intermediate portion that extends between the third end and the fourth end, the second intermediate portion having a second length that is adjustable (as seen in Fig 1-2, it is noted that the second strut assembly is similar to the first strut assembly #506).
PNG
media_image4.png
708
711
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myers US 2014/0066931.
Regarding Claim 1, Myers discloses an external fixation system (Figs 12) for securing a first bone of a patient relative to a second bone of the patient (abstract), the external fixation system comprising:
a first bone anchoring body (see Fig below) configured to be secured to the first bone (via at least one pin, see Fig below);
a second bone anchoring body (see Fig below) configured to be secured to the second bone (via at least one pin, see Fig below); and
a first strut assembly (see Fig below, it is noted that the first strut is similar to the first strut in Fig 1, 7-8) comprising:
a first end configured to be removably coupled to the first bone anchoring body (see Fig below, paragraph 106);
a second end configured to be removably coupled to the second bone anchoring body (see Fig below, paragraph 81);
an intermediate portion (see Fig below) that extends between the first end and the second end (see Fig below), the intermediate portion having a length that is adjustable (as seen in Fig 1-2); and
a clutch mechanism (#650, Fig 8, paragraph 92) that is movable between:
an unlocked position in which the clutch mechanism allows both increase and reduction in the length (paragraph 92 “unlocked configuration in which the second tubular member can freely translate relative the first tubular member”); and
a restricted position in which the clutch mechanism allows one of increase and reduction in the length while restricting the other of increase and reduction in the length (paragraph 92 “a locked configuration in which the second tubular member can freely translate relative to the first tubular member to increase the combined length of the external fixation system but is prevented from translating relative to the first tubular member to decrease the length of the external fixation system”).
PNG
media_image5.png
769
992
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, Myers discloses n the first bone anchoring body comprises a pin clamp body (see Fig below) comprising a plurality of pin lock collets (see Fig below, paragraph 112), each of which is configured to receive a bone pin and lock the bone pin in place relative to the pin clamp body (see Fig below, paragraph 112).
PNG
media_image6.png
582
747
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 12, 13, 16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myers US 2014/0066931.
Regarding Claim 12, Myers discloses an external fixation system (Fig 1) for securing a first bone of a patient relative to a second bone of the patient (abstract), the external fixation system comprising:
a first bone anchoring body (#526, Fig 3-4) configured to be secured to the first bone (via pins #510 as seen in Fig 3-4);
a second bone anchoring body (#526, Fig 3-4, see Fig below) configured to be secured to the second bone (via pins #510 as seen in Fig 3-4, it is noted that the first and second bone anchoring bodies have the same configuration as seen in Figs 1-4); and
a first strut assembly (see Fig below) comprising:
a first end configured to be removably coupled to the first bone anchoring body (see Fig below, paragraph 81);
a second end configured to be removably coupled to the second bone anchoring body (see Fig below, paragraph 81);
an intermediate portion (see Fig below) that extends between the first end and the second end (see Fig below), the intermediate portion having a length that is adjustable (as seen in Fig 1-2);
an adjustment mechanism operable to adjust a length of the intermediate portion (paragraph 93, Fig 7-8 where the adjustment mechanism is made up of textured surface #612 and/or #61, where it is able to be grasped by a user to adjust the length of the intermediate portion, where the adjustment mechanism #612 and/or #614 can be pulled or pushed to adjust the length of the intermediate portion, which operate independent off the clutch mechanism, it is noted that the adjustment mechanism may be grasped when coupled to or not coupled to the bone anchoring bodies, see Fig 2-3)(examiner notes that that the textured surfaces of Myers is a substantial equivalent to textured knob #140 of the invention); and
a clutch mechanism (#650, #604 and #611, Fig 8, paragraph 92-93, 95) operable independently of the adjustment mechanism (paragraph 75, Fig 5a-5c, the clutch mechanism can be independently actuated from the adjustment mechanism),
wherein the clutch mechanism is movable between:
an unlocked position in which the clutch mechanism allows variation in the length (paragraph 92 “unlocked configuration in which the second tubular member can freely translate relative the first tubular member”); and
a locked position in which the clutch mechanism does not allow variation in the length (paragraph 95 where #604 is rotated to move #611 to fully lock in the length of the strut).
PNG
media_image1.png
723
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 13, 19, Myers further discloses a first strut attachment assembly that is attachable to the first bone anchoring body and to the first end of the first strut assembly (see Fig below and Fig above); and
a second strut attachment assembly that is attachable to the second bone anchoring body and to the second end of the first strut assembly (see Fig below and Fig above); wherein:
the first end of the first strut assembly comprises a first sphere portion (see Fig below);
the second end of the first strut assembly comprises a second sphere portion (see Fig below);
the first bone anchoring body comprises a first arm (see Fig below);
the second bone anchoring body comprises a second arm (see Fig below, it is noted that the first and second bone anchoring bodies have the same configuration);
the first strut attachment assembly comprises:
a first fastener configured to secure the first strut attachment assembly to the first arm (see Fig below, paragraph 99); and
a first strut clamp assembly comprising a first clamp comprising a first inner clamp surface configured to receive and be tightened around the first sphere portion (see Fig below, Fig 3, 6, paragraph 100, tightened via bolt #530); and
the second strut attachment assembly (see Fig below, as noted above, the first and second strut attachment assemblies have the same configuration) comprises:
a second fastener configured to secure the second strut attachment assembly to the second arm (see Fig below, paragraph 99); and
a second strut clamp assembly comprising a second clamp comprising a second inner clamp surface configured to receive and be tightened around the second sphere portion (see Fig below, Fig 3, 6, paragraph 100, tightened via bolt #530),
the first strut clamp assembly is securable to the first arm by actuating only the first fastener (as seen in Fig 4 above in claim 3, paragraph 99, only the first fastener #522 secures the first arm to the first strut clamp assembly); and the second strut clamp assembly is securable to the second arm by actuating only the second fastener (as seen in Fig 4 above in claim 3, paragraph 99, only the second fastener #522 secures the second arm to the second strut clamp assembly),
where this allows the system to be used across other bones and over the knee (paragraph 75).
PNG
media_image2.png
814
792
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
677
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Myers discloses the clutch mechanism is further movable to a restricted position in which the clutch mechanism allows one of increase and reduction in the length while restricting the other of increase and reduction in the length (paragraph 92 “a locked configuration in which the second tubular member can freely translate relative to the first tubular member to increase the combined length of the external fixation system but is prevented from translating relative to the first tubular member to decrease the length of the external fixation system”).
Claim 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myers US 2014/0066931.
Regarding Claim 18, Myers discloses an external fixation system (Fig 12) for securing a first bone of a patient relative to a second bone of the patient (abstract), the external fixation system comprising:
a plurality of bone anchoring bodies (see Fig below), each of which is configured to be secured to at least one of the first bone and the second bone (secured to bone via pins as seen in Fig 12), the plurality of bone anchoring bodies comprising:
a first bone anchoring body (see Fig below) having a first shape (see Fig below, see also Fig 18a-18b); and
a second bone anchoring body (see Fig below) having a second shape (see Fig below) different from the first shape (see Fig below where the second shape is a “X” or “t” shape while the first shape is more linear and does not define an X or t shape);
a strut assembly (see Fig below) having a variable length (paragraph 92, it is noted that the strut assembly of Fig 12 is the same as that shown in Fig 1, 7) ; and
a plurality of strut attachment assemblies (see Fig below), each of which is attachable to any of the bone anchoring bodies and to the strut assembly to secure any of the bone anchoring bodies to the strut assembly (see Fig below).
PNG
media_image7.png
776
1038
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 20, Myers discloses the first bone anchoring body comprises a pin clamp body (see Fig below) comprising a plurality of pin lock collets (see Fig below, paragraph 112), each of which is configured to receive a bone pin and lock the bone pin in place relative to the pin clamp body (paragraph 112).
PNG
media_image6.png
582
747
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers US 2014/0066931 in view of Meyers US 5,797,908 (hereinafter ‘908).
Myers discloses the claimed invention as discussed above (see rejection for claim 1 using the embodiment of Fig 1 or 12) but does not disclose an auxiliary bone anchoring body comprising: an auxiliary base that is securable at an adjustable location along the length of the intermediate portion; and an auxiliary pin guide that is polyaxially adjustable relative to the auxiliary base such that the auxiliary pin guide is securable to the first bone at any of a plurality of orientations relative to the auxiliary base.
Meyers ‘908 discloses a strut (#28, Fig 1), an auxiliary bone anchoring body (#26) comprising: an auxiliary base (#40, Fig 2) that is securable at an adjustable location along the length of the intermediate portion (Fig 1-2, the base has an opening to receive the strut and can be located along a length of the intermediate portion of the strut and secured via fastener #54); and an auxiliary pin guide (collet #54, Fig 5) that is polyaxially adjustable relative to the auxiliary base such that the auxiliary pin guide is securable to the first bone at any of a plurality of orientations relative to the auxiliary base (Col 1 lines 20-35, Col 3 line 58- Col 4 line 5, where polyaxial movement is possible due to the spherical pin guide/collet #54 and where the collet of Meyers is similar the collet of Russel US 5,443,464).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Meyers to include an auxiliary bone anchoring body in view of Meyers ‘908 as discussed above because this allows for attachment of additional bone pins to the bone along the intermediate section of the strut.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray US 2014/0276812 in view of Meyers US 5,797,908 (hereinafter ‘908).
Murray discloses the claimed invention as discussed above but does not disclose an auxiliary bone anchoring body comprising: an auxiliary base that is securable at an adjustable location along the length of the intermediate portion; and an auxiliary pin guide that is polyaxially adjustable relative to the auxiliary base such that the auxiliary pin guide is securable to the first bone at any of a plurality of orientations relative to the auxiliary base.
Meyers ‘908 discloses a strut (#28, Fig 1), an auxiliary bone anchoring body (#26) comprising: an auxiliary base (#40, Fig 2) that is securable at an adjustable location along the length of the intermediate portion (Fig 1-2, the base has an opening to receive the strut and can be located along a length of the intermediate portion of the strut and secured via fastener #54); and an auxiliary pin guide (collet #54, Fig 5) that is polyaxially adjustable relative to the auxiliary base such that the auxiliary pin guide is securable to the first bone at any of a plurality of orientations relative to the auxiliary base (Col 1 lines 20-35, Col 3 line 58- Col 4 line 5, where polyaxial movement is possible due to the spherical pin guide/collet #54 and where the collet of Meyers is similar the collet of Russel US 5,443,464).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murray to include an auxiliary bone anchoring body in view of Meyers ‘908 as discussed above because this allows for attachment of additional bone pins to the bone along the intermediate section of the strut.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, 9, 15, 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regards to Claims 7, 15, Murray US 2014/0276812 recites a similar device (as claimed in claim 1, 12) but lacks the threads and knob as claimed. Cresina US 2007/0161983 discloses an adjustment knob #184, and outer tube #164 with threads and an inner tube #154 with threads but lacks the clutch mechanism as required in claim 1. A modification of Murray in view of Cresina does not seem possible given the number of structural changes required of Murray.
With regards to Claims 9, 17, Murray US 2014/0276812 recites a similar device (as claimed in claim 1, 12) but lacks clutch springs and balls as claimed. Mullaney US 2018/0344354 discloses a clutch mechanism with balls (see Fig 80) but lacks the springs as well as the restricted position required in claim 1, 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE whose telephone number is (571)270-5032. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30 am - 6pm 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, Eduardo Robert can be reached at 571-272-4719. 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.
/JAN CHRISTOPHER L MERENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773