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 .
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 1-10, 12-16 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 1 recites the limitation "the passage of at least one medium." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a passage of at least one medium” is suggested).
Claim 1 states that the instantly claimed at least one opening element has a “first opening surface” and a “second opening surface” (it is noted that at least dependent Claims 2-4, 8, 12-14 also refer to at least one of said “first opening surface” and “second opening surface”), wherein said two opening surfaces share a common lateral line and said two surfaces are arranged at a deflection angle to one another in the instantly claimed range. However, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how an “opening” can be, or otherwise function as, a “surface” given that an opening is generally formed, or otherwise exists, in the absence of a material or surface, or given the presence of a gap/space in a material or surface (it is noted that at least Applicant’s Figures 4, 6, 8-10 appear to indicate that openings (e.g. 113, 115) exist in the bipolar plate, wherein the openings are not surfaces themselves, but instead gaps/openings formed in the bipolar plate. Proper clarification is required.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the limitation "the opening element." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“the at least one opening element” is suggested).
Claims 9-10 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 9 recites the limitation "the respective other monopolar plate." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a respective other monopolar plate” is suggested).
Claim 11 is 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 11 recites the limitation "the passage of at least one medium." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“a passage of at least one medium” is suggested).
Claim 11 states that the instantly claimed at least one opening element has a “first opening surface” and a “second opening surface,” wherein said two opening surfaces share a common lateral line and said two surfaces are arranged at a deflection angle to one another in the instantly claimed range. However, Claim 11 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear how an “opening” can be, or otherwise function as, a “surface” given that an opening is generally formed, or otherwise exists, in the absence of a material or surface, or given the presence of a gap/space in a material or surface (it is noted that at least Applicant’s Figures 4, 6, 8-10 appear to indicate that openings (e.g. 113, 115) exist in the bipolar plate, wherein the openings are not surfaces themselves, but instead gaps/openings formed in the bipolar plate. Proper clarification is required.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation "the opening element." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“the at least one opening element” is suggested).
Claim 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "the opening element." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“the at least one opening element” is suggested).
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites the limitation "the opening element." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (“the at least one opening element” is suggested).
Claim Interpretation
Claims 7 and 16 each recite a “substantially equal distance” and a “substantially equal width.” Applicant’s Specification as filed (See at least [0032]) states that a “substantially equal distance and a substantially equal width is understood in particular to mean that a distance or a width has not more than 30%, in particular no more than 10%, of a mean distance or a mean width od all opening elements present on the bipolar plate.”
Therefore, the terms “substantially equal distance” and “substantially equal width” will be interpreted in the aforementioned manner set forth in Applicant’s Specification.
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 1-5, 8-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guttermann et al. (US 2005/0064267).
Regarding Claim 1, Guttermann teaches a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack, wherein the fuel cell stack comprises a bipolar plate (“bipolar plate”) for a fuel cell (“electrochemical cell”) (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 1a-2a, 2c, Guttermann teaches that the bipolar plate (3, 3’), which includes at least a “first monopolar plate” and a “second monopolar plate” coupled to one another, comprises a media port (5a) (“at least one port”), a “seal” (i.e. sealing bead (11)), and an electrochemically active region (“active surface”) (i.e. the space substantially covered by gas diffusion layer (9) and arranged in substantially the closed space (10)) ([0030]-[0031], [0035], [0037]). As illustrated in Figures 1a-2a, 2c (and the annotated Figure 2a below), one of the first or second monopolar plates includes an “opening element” for the passage of media (“at least one medium”), wherein the opening element is located between the media port and the electrochemically active region, wherein the opening element has a “first opening surface” and a “second opening surface,” wherein said first and second opening surfaces have a “common lateral line”, and wherein said first and second opening surfaces are arranged at a deflection angle to one another “in a range of 30° to 120°” (i.e. the first opening surface and the second opening surface (first interpretation) are arranged at a deflection angle of approximately 90°, and the first opening surface and the second opening surface (second interpretation) are arranged at a deflection angle of approximately 45°).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 2a (See Claim 1), the opening element has a “lateral surface” extending from the first opening surface to the second opening surface, wherein the lateral surface is, at least in part, “straight, bent, and/or kinked” (it is noted that that the instant Claim does not require that the lateral surface is entirely, fully, or completely straight, bent, and/or kinked).
Regarding Claim 3, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 2a (See Claim 1), the opening element lies in a base plate (i.e. the physical plate depicted in the Figure) of the first or second monopolar plate.
Regarding Claim 4, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 2a (See Claim 1), the first opening surface is larger than the second opening surface.
Regarding Claim 5, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the seal is sealing bead (11) (“sealing bead”), wherein the opening element is arranged, at least in part, on the sealing bead.
Regarding Claim 8, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 2a (See Claim 1), the second opening surface is formed by an open side of the opening element.
Regarding Claim 9, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 1c, Guttermann teaches the fuel cell stack (1) comprising a stack of fuel cells (“an arrangement of electrochemical cells”) and at least one of the bipolar plates ([0029]). As illustrated in Figures 1a-1b (and the annotated Figure 2a), Gutterman teaches an ion-conductive polymer membrane arrangement (“membrane electrode arrangement”), wherein the opening element is arranged on the bipolar plate such that a “lateral surface” of the opening element abuts the ion-conductive polymer membrane arrangement ([0030]).
Regarding Claim 10, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 9, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figure 1c, Guttermann teaches the fuel cell stack (1) comprising a stack of fuel cells and at least one of the bipolar plates ([0029]). Guttermann teaches a method of operating the fuel cell stack (“method for operating an arrangement of electrochemical cells”), wherein the media is passed from the media port through the opening element to the electrochemically active region, wherein a flow direction of the media is necessarily deflected about the deflection angle (See Claim 1) as it passes through the first or second monopolar plate ([0002]-[0004], [0030]-[0031], [0035], [0037]).
Regarding Claim 12, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 2a (See Claim 1), the opening element has a “lateral surface” extending from the first opening surface to the second opening surface, wherein the lateral surface is, at least in part, “straight” insofar as it includes at least one straight portion (it is noted that that the instant Claim does not require that the lateral surface is entirely, fully, or completely straight).
Regarding Claim 13, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 2a (See Claim 1), the opening element has a “lateral surface” extending from the first opening surface to the second opening surface, wherein the lateral surface is, at least in part, “bent” insofar as it includes at least one bent portion located approximately at its midpoint (it is noted that that the instant Claim does not require that the lateral surface is entirely, fully, or completely bent).
Regarding Claim 14, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 2a (See Claim 1), the opening element has a “lateral surface” extending from the first opening surface to the second opening surface, wherein the lateral surface is, at least in part, kinked insofar as it includes at least one kinked portion located approximately at its midpoint (it is noted that that the instant Claim does not require that the lateral surface is entirely, fully, or completely kinked). Applicant is welcome to provide explicit evidence as to the difference between kinked and bent in context of the instant Claims, and furthermore, welcome to provide evidence that the aforementioned midpoint section of the later surface of Guttermann is not kinked in any way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guttermann et al. (US 2005/0064267), and further in view of Strobel et al. (US 2007/0231619).
Regarding Claim 6, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Guttermann does not explicitly teach that the bipolar plate comprises at least two of the opening elements.
However, Strobel teaches a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack ([0001], [0052]-[0053]). As illustrated in Figure 4, Strobel teaches a bipolar plate of the fuel cell stack, wherein the bipolar plate comprises an electrochemically active region (10) and a media opening (5a) ([0064]-[0066]). As illustrated in Figures 4-5b, Strobel teaches that a plurality of open perforations (8) are positioned between the media opening and the electrochemically active region, wherein the open perforations are open towards the electrochemically active region to permit a supply of the media to pass through towards the flow channels of the electrochemically active region ([0066], [0068]). As illustrated in Figures 4-5a, the plurality of open perforations are arranged in a row, arranged at a substantially equal distance to one another, and arranged to have a substantially equal width ([0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, in a substantially similar manner to the bipolar plate of Strobel which comprises a plurality of open perforations, provide the bipolar plate of Guttermann with a plurality of the opening elements which are arranged in a row at a substantially equal distance to one another and having a substantially equal width, given not only because such a modification would permit an increased amount of the media to pass from the media port to the electrochemically active region, but also because such a modification would have only involved, at least, a mere duplication of the existing opening element present in the bipolar plate of Guttermann, wherein it is noted that a duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B)).
Regarding Claim 7, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 6, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 6), the plurality of opening elements are arranged at a substantially equal distance to one another and have a substantially equal width.
Regarding Claim 15, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Guttermann does not explicitly teach that the bipolar plate comprises at least two of the opening elements that are arranged in at least one row or offset from one another.
However, Strobel teaches a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack ([0001], [0052]-[0053]). As illustrated in Figure 4, Strobel teaches a bipolar plate of the fuel cell stack, wherein the bipolar plate comprises an electrochemically active region (10) and a media opening (5a) ([0064]-[0066]). As illustrated in Figures 4-5b, Strobel teaches that a plurality of open perforations (8) are positioned between the media opening and the electrochemically active region, wherein the open perforations are open towards the electrochemically active region to permit a supply of the media to pass through towards the flow channels of the electrochemically active region ([0066], [0068]). As illustrated in Figures 4-5a, the plurality of open perforations are arranged in a row, arranged at a substantially equal distance to one another, and arranged to have a substantially equal width ([0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would, in a substantially similar manner to the bipolar plate of Strobel which comprises a plurality of open perforations, provide the bipolar plate of Guttermann with a plurality of the opening elements which are arranged in a row at a substantially equal distance to one another and having a substantially equal width, given not only because such a modification would permit an increased amount of the media to pass from the media port to the electrochemically active region, but also because such a modification would have only involved, at least, a mere duplication of the existing opening element present in the bipolar plate of Guttermann, wherein it is noted that a duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B)).
Regarding Claim 16, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 15, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 15), the plurality of opening elements are arranged at a substantially equal distance to one another and have a substantially equal width.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guttermann et al. (US 2005/0064267), and further in view of Quaadvliet (EP 0408104, using the translation provided by Applicant in the 07/06/23 IDS for citation purposes).
Regarding Claim 11, Guttermann teaches a fuel cell system comprising a fuel cell stack, wherein the fuel cell stack comprises a bipolar plate (“bipolar plate”) for a fuel cell (“electrochemical cell”) (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 1a-2a, 2c, Guttermann teaches that the bipolar plate (3, 3’), which includes at least a “first monopolar plate” and a “second monopolar plate” coupled to one another, comprises a media port (5a) (“at least one port”), a “seal” (i.e. sealing bead (11)), and an electrochemically active region (“active surface”) (i.e. the space substantially covered by gas diffusion layer (9) and arranged in substantially the closed space (10)) ([0030]-[0031], [0035], [0037]). As illustrated in Figures 1a-2a, 2c (and the annotated Figure 2a below), one of the first or second monopolar plates includes an “opening element” for the passage of media (“at least one medium”), wherein the opening element is located between the media port and the electrochemically active region, wherein the opening element has a “first opening surface” and a “second opening surface,” wherein said first and second opening surfaces have a “common lateral line”, and wherein said first and second opening surfaces are arranged at a deflection angle to one another “in a range of 30° to 120°” (i.e. the first opening surface and the second opening surface (first interpretation) are arranged at a deflection angle of approximately 90°, and the first opening surface and the second opening surface (second interpretation) are arranged at a deflection angle of approximately 45°).
Guttermann does not explicitly teach that both the first and the second monopolar plates include the opening element.
However, Quaadvliet teaches a separator plate for a fuel cell stack (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 4 and 8, Quaadvliet teaches that the separator plate (20) comprises first and second monopolar plates connected to one another, wherein each of said monopolar plates comprises a plurality of open perforations which permit a supply of a media specific to each monopolar plate to pass through towards the flow channels of the electrochemically active region, wherein said open perforations are positioned between a media port and an electrochemically active region of each of said monopolar plates
(col. 4 line 14 to col. 5 line 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the bipolar plate of Guttermann such that both the first and second monopolar plates include the opening element, given not only because such a modification would permit a supply of a media specific to each of the monopolar plates to pass through towards the flow channels of the electrochemically active region, as taught by Quaadvliet, but also because such a modification would have only involved, at least, a mere duplication of the existing opening element present in the bipolar plate of Guttermann, wherein it is noted that a duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guttermann et al. (US 2005/0064267), and further in view of Gluek et al. (US 2019/0088956).
Regarding Claim 12, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 2a (See Claim 1), the opening element has a “lateral surface” extending from the first opening surface to the second opening surface.
Guttermann does not explicitly teach that the lateral surface is straight.
However, Gluek teaches a separator plate for a fuel cell system (Abstract, [0001]). As illustrated in at least Figure 4a, Gluek teaches that the separator plate comprises a sealing bead arrangement (14a) through which media from a passage opening (10a) is able to flow through ([0053]). As illustrated in Figures 4a, 8a-8f, Gluek teaches that the sealing bead arrangements are structured with at least one lateral surface, wherein the lateral surface extends so as to be, for example, straight, curved, or kinked in order to not only guide the media along a desired flowpath, but also to help minimize cross-sectional area characteristics ([0080]-[0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the lateral surface of Guttermann such that it is straight, as taught by Gluek, given not only because such a modification of the lateral surface allow for the media to be guided along a desired flowpath dictated by the straight shape, but also because such a modification would have only involved a change of shape of the existing lateral surface present in the bipolar plate of Guttermann, wherein it is noted that a change of shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B)).
Regarding Claim 13, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 2a (See Claim 1), the opening element has a “lateral surface” extending from the first opening surface to the second opening surface.
Guttermann does not explicitly teach that the lateral surface is bent.
However, Gluek teaches a separator plate for a fuel cell system (Abstract, [0001]). As illustrated in at least Figure 4a, Gluek teaches that the separator plate comprises a sealing bead arrangement (14a) through which media from a passage opening (10a) is able to flow through ([0053]). As illustrated in Figures 4a, 8a-8f, Gluek teaches that the sealing bead arrangements are structured with at least one lateral surface, wherein the lateral surface extends so as to be, for example, straight, curved, or kinked in order to not only guide the media along a desired flowpath, but also to help minimize cross-sectional area characteristics ([0080]-[0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the lateral surface of Guttermann such that it is bent, as taught by Gluek, given not only because such a modification of the lateral surface allow for the media to be guided along a desired flowpath dictated by the bent shape, but also because such a modification would have only involved a change of shape of the existing lateral surface present in the bipolar plate of Guttermann, wherein it is noted that a change of shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B)).
Regarding Claim 14, Guttermann teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in the annotated Figure 2a (See Claim 1), the opening element has a “lateral surface” extending from the first opening surface to the second opening surface.
Guttermann does not explicitly teach that the lateral surface is kinked.
However, Gluek teaches a separator plate for a fuel cell system (Abstract, [0001]). As illustrated in at least Figure 4a, Gluek teaches that the separator plate comprises a sealing bead arrangement (14a) through which media from a passage opening (10a) is able to flow through ([0053]). As illustrated in Figures 4a, 8a-8f, Gluek teaches that the sealing bead arrangements are structured with at least one lateral surface, wherein the lateral surface extends so as to be, for example, straight, curved, or kinked in order to not only guide the media along a desired flowpath, but also to help minimize cross-sectional area characteristics ([0080]-[0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would construct the lateral surface of Guttermann such that it is kinked, as taught by Gluek, given not only because such a modification of the lateral surface allow for the media to be guided along a desired flowpath dictated by the kinked shape, but also because such a modification would have only involved a change of shape of the existing lateral surface present in the bipolar plate of Guttermann, wherein it is noted that a change of shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728