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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 6 recites the limitation “a density of within a range of 1-3.5 kg per m 2 ” and claim 7 recites the limitation “a density of within a range of 3-6 kg per m 2 ”. Density is a known property in the art and it is not understood how the given range for the units provided is obtained and no explanation is provided in the specification. For example, aluminum, one of the example materials provided, has a density of 2.7 kg/m 2 with a thickness of 1mm and 8.1 kg/m 2 with a thickness of 3mm CITATION Gas23 \l 1033 (Gasparini, 2023) . A thicker sheet of aluminum would provide a range having an areal density. significantly higher than the claimed range. Steel sheet metal would yield significantly higher densities. Polypropylene has a lower density and would contribute to an overall lower density, but even with the use of polypropylene, it is not clear how the range was calculated using the range of thickness of the flooring and the specification does not provide any explanation 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 6-7 and 13 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 6 recites the limitation “a density of within a range of 1-3.5 kg per m 2 ” and is confusing and unclear. Density is a known property in the art and it is not understood how the given range for the units provided is obtained and no explanation is provided in the specification. For example, aluminum, one of the example materials provided, has a density of 2.7 kg/m 2 with a thickness of 1mm and 8.1 kg/m 2 with a thickness of 3mm CITATION Gas23 \l 1033 (Gasparini, 2023) . A thicker sheet of aluminum would provide a range having an areal density significantly higher than the claimed range. Steel sheet metal would yield significantly higher densities. Polypropylene has a lower density and would contribute to an overall lower density, but even with the use of polypropylene, it is not clear how the range was calculated using the range of thickness of the flooring and the specification does not provide any explanation. For purposes of examination and compact prosecution , Examiner applies art using mm instead of cm. Claim 7 recites the limitation “a density of within a range of 3-6 kg per m 2 ” and is confusing and unclear. Density is a known property in the art and it is not understood how the given range for the units provided is obtained and no explanation is provided in the specification. For example, aluminum, one of the example materials provided, has a density of 2.7 kg/m 2 with a thickness of 1mm and 8.1 kg/m 2 with a thickness of 3mm. A thicker sheet of aluminum would provide a range having an areal density significantly higher than the claimed range. Steel sheet metal would yield significantly higher densities. Polypropylene has a lower density and would contribute to an overall lower density, but even with the use of polypropylene, it is not clear how the range was calculated using the range of thickness of the flooring and the specification does not provide any explanation. CITATION Gas23 \l 1033 (Gasparini, 2023) For purposes of examination and compact prosecution, Examiner applies art using mm instead of cm. Claim 13 recites the limitation "said base part" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim s 1, 4, 8-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ciprian (US Pat 8,544,794) . Regarding claim 1, Ciprian discloses a flooring for a vehicle with a bottom of an interior compartment of said vehicle, said flooring having flooring dimensions suitable for covering the bottom, or at least a part of the bottom, of said interior compartment of said vehicle, said flooring having an upper side adapted for the mounting of at least one seat, and a bottom side adapted for fastening to said bottom of said interior compartment of said vehicle, said flooring comprising in an alternating order: elongate plate elements of a first type 20 and with a top face 21 , a bottom face 16 opposite to said top face 21 , and two opposing first type side edges 18, 19 (see Figure 2b ; Col. 3, lines 38-46 ) ; and elongate plate elements of a second type 9 and with a top face 22 , a bottom face opposite to said top face 22 , and two opposing second type side edges (see Figures 2a-2b; Col. 3, lines 30-37, 51-65 ) ; wherein at least one of said two opposing second type 9 side edges of said plate element of said second type 9 is configured to engage with one of said plate elements of said first type 20 (see Figure 2b; Col. 3, lines 30-37 ) ; wherein one or more of said plate elements of said first type 20 are flanked along said two opposing first type side edges with correspondin g one or more plate elements of said second type 22 (see Figure s 2a-2b; Col. 3, lines 38-46 ) ; wherein said top face of said plate elements of said first type 20 comprises a rail element 14 adapted for engaging with said at least one seat (see Figure 2a-2b ; Col. 3, lines 30-38 ) ; wherein said plate elements of said second type are each configured as a sandwich panel including a top plate 10 , a bottom plate 11 , and a honeycomb structure 12 disposed between said top plate 10 and said bottom plate 11 (see Figure 2b; Col. 3, lines 14-20) . Regarding claim 4, Ciprian discloses t he flooring according to claim 1,wherein each plate element of said plate elements of said first type 20 comprises a base part 17 and an upper part 21 , wherein said upper part 21 comprises said rail element 14 (see Figures 2a-2b) , and wherein said base part 17 and upper part 21 together defines define a pair of elongate grooves flanking said rail element 14 , each elongate groove of said pair of elongate grooves adapted for receiving a side edge of a corresponding plate element of said second type 9 (see Figure 2b and annotated Figure 2b below ) . Regarding claim 8, Ciprian discloses t he flooring according to claim 1, wherein said flooring does not comprise stiffeners mounted across said plate elements of a first of said first type 20 and said plate elements of said second type 9 (see Figures 2a-2b) . The flooring does have a cross beam 28 on which it is mounted, but this cross beam 28 is not defined as a “stiffener” , and is used to mount the flooring to the vehicle body (see Col. 4, lines 30-47). Regarding claim 9, Ciprian discloses t he flooring according to claim 1, wherein said plate element of said first type 20 comprises a base part 17 and an upper part 21 (see Figure 2b; Col. 3, lines 30-46) . Regarding claim 10, Ciprian discloses t he flooring according to claim 9, wherein said upper part 21 forms said rail element 14 (see Figure 2b; Col. 3, lines 38-50) . Regarding claim 11, Ciprian discloses t he flooring acc ording to claim 10, wherein said base part 17 and said upper part 21 together define a pair defines a pair of elongate grooves flanking said rail element 14 (see Figures 2a-2b and annotated Figure 2b above; Col. 3, lines 30-46) . Regarding claim 12, Ciprian discloses t he flooring according to claim 11, wherein said grooves each are shaped to receive a correspondin g side edge of said plate element of said second type 9 (see Figure 2b ; Col. 3, lines 30-46 ) . Regarding claim 14, Ciprian discloses a method of mounting said flooring of claim 1 in said vehicle, said method comprising: providing bottom dimensions of said bottom 28 in said interior space; assembling or providing said flooring with said floorin g dimensions provided according to said bottom dimensions, or at least to a part of said bottom dimensions; inserting said flooring into said interior space; and permanently attaching said flooring to said bottom 28 (see Figure 3; Col. 4, lines 26-63) . Claim s 1, 4-5 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Eilken et al. (EP 3042846) . Regarding claim 1, Eilken et al. disclose a flooring for a vehicle with a bottom of an interior compartment of said vehicle, said flooring having flooring dimensions suitable for covering the bottom, or at least a part of the bottom, of said interior compartment of said vehicle, said flooring having an upper side adapted for the mounting of at least one seat, and a bottom side adapted for fastening to said bottom of said interior compartment of said vehicle, said flooring comprising in an alternating order: elongate plate elements of a first type 2 and with a top face, a bottom face opposite to said top face, and two opposing first type side edges (see Figure s 2a- 2 c ; Paragraphs 26 and 30 ); and elongate plate elements of a second type 4 and with a top face, a bottom face opposite to said top face, and two opposing second type side edges (see Figures 2a-2 c ; Paragraph 30 ); wherein at least one of said two opposing second type 4 side edges 9 of said plate element of said second type 4 is configured to engage with one of said plate elements of said first type 2 (see Figure s 2b -2c ; Paragraph 30 ); wherein one or more of said plate elements of said first type 2 are flanked along said two opposing first type side edges with corresponding one or more plate elements of said second type 4 (see Figures 2a-2b; Paragraph 30 ); wherein said top face of said plate elements of said first type 20 comprises a rail element adapted for engaging with said at least one seat (see Figure 2 b-2c; Paragraph 26) ; wherein said plate elements of said second type 4 are each configured as a sandwich panel including a top plate 5 , a bottom plate 6 , and a honeycomb structure 8 disposed between said top plate 5 and said bottom plate 6 (see Figure 2 a ; Paragraphs 27-28 ). Regarding claim 4, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according claim 1,wherein each plate element of said plate elements of said first type 2 comprises a base part and an upper part, wherein said upper part comprises said rail element, and wherein said base part and upper part together define a pair of elongate grooves flanking said rail element , each elongate groove of said pair of elongate groo ve adapted for receiving a side edge of a corresponding plate element of said second type (see annotated Figure 2b below; Paragraphs 26 and 30) . Regarding claim 5, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according to claim 4, wherein a plate element of said second type 4 together with two flanking plate elements of said first type define an air-filled void between said base part and said bottom face 6 of said plate element of said second type 4 (see Figures 2a-2b and annotated Figure 2b above ; Paragraphs 26-27 ) . Regarding claim 8, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according to claim 1, wherein said flooring d oes not comprise stiffeners mounted across said plate elements of a first of said first type 2 and said plate elements of said second type 4 (see Figures 2a-2c; Paragraph 30) . Regarding claim 9, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according to claim 1, wherein said plate element of said first type 2 comprises a base part and an upper part (see annotated Figure 2b above; Paragraphs 26 and 30). Regarding claim 10, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according to claim 9, wherein said upper part forms said rail element (see annotated Figure 2b above; Paragraph 26) . Regarding claim 11, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according to claim 10, wherein said base part and said upper part together define a pair of elongate grooves flanking said rail element ( see annotated Figure 2b above; Paragraphs 26 and 30 ). Regarding claim 12, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according to claim 11, wherein said grooves each are shaped to receive a correspondin g side edge of said plate element of said second type 4 (see annotated Figure 2b above; Paragraph 30) . Regarding claim 13, as understood, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according to claim 1, wherein said plate element of said second type 4 together with two flanking plate elements of said plate element of said first type 2 define an air-filled void between said base part and said bottom face 6 of said plate element of said second type 4 (see annotated Figure 2b above; Paragraphs 28 and 30) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim s 1, 8-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weersink (EP 1495946) in view of Preisler et al. (US Pat 8,834,985) . Regarding claim 1, Weersink discloses a flooring for a vehicle with a bottom of an interior compartment of said vehicle, said flooring having flooring dimensions suitable for covering the bottom, or at least a part of the bottom, of said interior compartment of said vehicle, said flooring having an upper side adapted for the mounting of at least one seat, and a bottom side adapted for fastening to said bottom of said interior compartment of said vehicle (see Figure 1; Paragraph 17) , said flooring comprising in an alternating order: elongate plate elements of a first type 33 and with a top face 35 , a bottom face 32 opposite to said top face 35 , and two opposing first type side edges; and elongate plate elements of a second type 31 and with a top face, a bottom face opposite to said top face, and two opposing second type side edges (see annotated Figure 3; Paragraph 23) ; wherein at least one of said two opposing second type 31 side edges of said plate element of said second type 31 is configured to engage with one of said plate elements of said first type 33 (see Figure 3; Paragraph 23) ; wherein one or more of said plate elements of said first type 33 are flanked along said two opposing first type side with correspondin g one or more plate elements of said second type 31 (see Figure 3 and annotated Figure 3 ; Paragraph 23) ; wherein said top face of said plate elements of said first type 33 comprises a rail element 34 adapted for engaging with said at least one seat 6 (see Figures 1 and 3; Paragraphs 17-18 and 23) ; wherein said plate elements of said second type 31 are each configured as a sandwich panel including a top plate, a bottom plate (see Figure 3 and annotated Figure 3 below; Paragraph 23). Weersink fails to disclose a honeycomb structure disposed between said top plate and said bottom plate. Preisler et al. disclose a flooring 30 having a floor panel 20’ with a top panel 14’, a bottom panel 18’, and a honeycomb structure 16’ positioned between the top panel 14’ and bottom panel 18’ (see Figure 8; Col. 5, lines 45-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the plate element of the second type of Weersink with a honeycomb structure between the top plate and bottom plate, with a reasonable expectation of success, to provide strong, lightweight, and low density material to support passengers, as taught by Preisler et al.. Regarding claim 8, Weersink , as modified by Preisler et al., discloses t he flooring according to claim 1, wherein said flooring does not comprise stiffeners mounted across said plate elements of said first type 33 and said plate elements of said second type 15 (see Figure 3; Paragraphs 20-23) . The disclosure does not show nor mention a stiffener mounted in the flooring 30, while other embodiments, particularly those shown in Figures 2 and 4 show a stiffener 20. Regarding claim 9, Weersink , as modified by Preisler et al., discloses t he flooring according to claim 1, wherein said plate element of said first type 33 comprises a base part 32 and an upper part 34 (see Figure 3; Paragraph 23). Regarding claim 10, Weersink , as modified by Preisler et al., discloses t he flooring according to claim 9, wherein said upper part 34 forms said rail element 35 (see Figure 3; Paragraph 23) . Regarding claim 14, Weersink , as modified by Preisler et al., discloses a method of mounting said flooring 4 of claim 1 in said motor vehicle 1 , said method comprising: providing bottom dimensions of said bottom in said interior space 2 ; assembling or providing said flooring 4 with said floorin g dimensions provided according to said bottom dimensions, or at least to a part of said bottom dimensions (see Paragraphs 19 and 23) ; inserting said flooring 4 into said interior space 2 ; and permanently attaching said flooring 4 to said bottom 11 (see Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 20, 23 and 25) . The method described is described of the first embodiment; however, it is noted that the second embodiment is applied in the same manner, as noted in Paragraphs 23 and 25. Regarding claim 15, Weersink , as modified by Preisler et al., discloses t he method according to claim 14, wherein when said bottom 2 comprises a corrugated surface 11 comprising a series of parallel ridges and grooves, wherein prior to said insertin g of said flooring 4 , filling the grooves of said corrugated surface with an adhesive 13 , said adhesive for attaching said flooring 4 to said bottom 2 (see Figures 2-3; Paragraphs 19-20, 23 and 25) . Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eilken et al. . Regarding claim 2, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according to claim 1, wherein said plate elements of said first type 2 are made of a metal (see Paragraph 26), while at least one of said top plate 5 and said bottom plate 6 , are made are made of fiber-reinforced plastic (see Paragraph 28) . Eilken et al. fail to disclose said honeycomb structure is made from polypropylene, Eilken et al. disclose that a sealing foam is made from polypropylene because of its lightweight and cost-effective properties (see Paragraph 29) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the honeycomb structure of Eilken et al. from polypropylene, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it is lightweight and cost-effective, as taught by Eilken et al.. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eilken et al. in view of Carlsson (EP 3078577) . Regarding claim 3, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according to claim 1 having said top face 5 of said elongate plate elements of said second type 4 (see Figure 2a; Paragraph 27). Eilken et al. fail to disclose the top face is configured with a nonslip surface . Carlsson discloses a flooring panel 13 used in a vehicle 1 and having a non-slip surface on a top surface 32 (see Figures 1-3; Paragraph 74 ) . The non-slip surface is provided to improve safety of a work environment in the vehicle and reduce the risk of a person slipping (see Paragraph 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the top face of the elongate plate elements of the second type of Eilken et al. with a non-slip surface, with a reasonable expectation of success, to reduce the risk of a person slipping and improve of a work environment, as taught by Carlsson. Claim s 6-7 , as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eilken et al. in view of Tiryaki et al. ( DE 102018122813 ) . Regarding claim 6, as understood, Eilken et al. disclose t he flooring according to claim 1 having said plate elements of said second type 4 (see Figure 2a; Paragraph 26). Eilken et al. fail to disclose that the plate elements of said second type have a height of within a range of 0.5-2 m m, and a density of within a range of 1-3.5 kg per m 2 . Eilken et al. disclose that a sealing foam is made from polypropylene because of its lightweight and cost-effective properties (see Paragraph 29). Tiryaki et al. disclose a vehicle having a floor plate having a top face, a bottom face, and a honeycomb structure with a thickness of less than 10mm (see Paragraph 24) . The smaller thickness of the floor panel 6 reduces costs, particularly when replacing faulty floor panels (see Paragraph 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the honeycomb structure of Eilken et al. from polypropylene, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it is lightweight and cost-effective, as taught by Eilken et al.. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the plate elements of the second type of Eilken et al. having a height of less than 10mm, or within a range of .5-2mm, with a reasonable expectation, to use a small thickness that reduces cost, as taught by Tiryaki et al.. Polypropylene has a density of 90 5 kg/m 3 and when it has a thickness of 2mm, it has an areal density of 1.8 1 kg/m 2 CITATION All20 \l 1033 (All about density, 2020) . Given this thickness and density, the material would meet the claim limitations. Regarding claim 7, as understood, Eilken et al. disclose the flooring according to claim 1, with the plate element of said first type being made from aluminum (see Paragraph 26). Eilken et al. fail to disclose the flooring having a height within a range of 0.5- 4 m m, and a density of within a range of 3-6 kg per m 2 . Tiryaki et al. disclose a vehicle having a floor plate having a top face, a bottom face, and a honeycomb structure with a thickness of less than 10mm (see Paragraph 24). The smaller thickness of the floor panel 6 reduces costs, particularly when replacing faulty floor panels (see Paragraph 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the plate elements of the second type of Eilken et al. having a height of less than 10mm, or within a range of .5-4mm, with a reasonable expectation, to use a small thickness that reduces cost, as taught by Tiryaki et al.. Aluminum has a density of 2700 kg/m 3 and when it has a thickness of 2mm, it has an areal density of 5.4 kg/m 2 CITATION Gas23 \l 1033 (Gasparini, 2023) . Given this thickness and density, the material would meet the claim limitations. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fitze (US Pat 7,350,853) discloses a floor module for a vehicle having a plate element of a first type and a plate element of a second type with a rail element adapted to engage a seat. Perkowski et al. (US PG Pub 2008/0222974) disclose a system for a floor module of a vehicle having a plate of a first type and a plate element of a second type. Hansen (US PG Pub 2016/0152281) disclose floor module for a vehicle having a rail element to engage at least one seat. Kumar (US Pat 11,590,038) disclose a floor panel system for vehicles having a rail element to engage at least one seat. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VERONICA M CONDO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9415 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8am-3pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amy Weisberg can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5500 . 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. /VERONICA M CONDO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3612 /AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612