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 Objections
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 is missing a period at the end, in the preliminary amendment applicant has tried to amend the claim to add a period. However applicant included the period within double brackets. Double brackets are utilized for indicating deleted matter (see MPEP 714). Applicant should amend claim 5 to include the period via underlining. 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 limitation(s) is/are: “vision system” in claim 5 and “locking mechanism” in claim 7.
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 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) 1-3, 8-10, 13 & 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Assmann (DE3922400A1).
As to claims 1 & 17-18, Assmann teaches a combination vehicle (ref 12 & [0014-0015]) for cleaning a sewer [0004-0005], the vehicle including a water jetting system (see Fig.1) comprising: a frame (combination of refs 20/22) mounted to a first end of the vehicle (see Fig.1) and horizontally spanning substantially a width thereof (see Fig.1); a slide carriage (ref 26) operatively engaged with the frame and slideable there along, across the width of the vehicle (see Figs.1-2 & [0017]); a hose reel frame (ref 40) pivotally connected to the slide carriage and pivotal about a vertical axis (ref 42) & [0019]-[0021]); a hose reel (ref 44) rotatably supported on the hose reel frame, adapted to rotate about a horizontal axis (ref 46 & [0020]), and configured to support a hose (ref 48) that is operatively connectable to a water jetting source to thereby supply pressurized water from an outer end of the hose (ref 50, further the limitation of being connectable is intended use); and a controller (ref 56) operatively coupled to the hose reel frame and operable to cause traversing of the slide carriage along the frame, and also operable to cause pivotal movement of the hose reel frame relative to the vertical axis and the slide carriage [0021-0022], thereby to enhance the capability for locating the hose in a desired position for cleaning a sewer.
As to claim 2, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the hose reel frame includes a first proximal end and an opposite distal end (see Figs.1-2), and further comprising: an actuator (see refs 36/38) located on the slide carriage and pivotally connected to the hose reel frame, the actuator defining the vertical pivot axis of the hose reel frame [0019 & 0021].
As to claim 3, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 2, wherein the distal end of the hose reel frame is selectively moveably beyond either a left side or a right side of the vehicle (see [0021] stating the pivot may be approximately 180 degrees, thus at a left-most and right-most position, pivoting of the frame to the left and right respectively would move the frame beyond the left or right side of the vehicle; alternatively, when the frame pivots to the right it is moved beyond the left side of the vehicle and vice-versa; see also Fig.2).
As to claims 8 & 19, Assmann teaches the vehicle and jetting system of claims 1 & 17, further comprising: an upper carriage assembly located on the slide carriage; an upper engagement member located on the frame, the upper carriage assembly configured to engage with and move along the upper engagement member; and a lower carriage assembly configured to engage with and move along a corresponding lower engagement member of the frame; a lower engagement member located on the frame, the lower carriage assembly configured to engage with and move along the lower engagement member (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
435
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 9, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 8, wherein each of the upper carriage assembly and the lower carriage assembly operatively supports a plurality of rollers (refs 28 & 30), and each plurality of rollers operatively engages one of the upper and lower engagement members [0017-0018].
As to claim 10, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the axis of rotation of each of the rollers of the upper and lower carriage assemblies is angled relative to a front surface of the frame (see Fig.1 axis of rotation is perpendicular to the front surface of the frame).
As to claim 13, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 1, further comprising a tensioner located on the slide carriage to adjust a position of the carriage relative to the frame (i.e., either pinion, see [0016-0017] or roller ref 30 reads on tensioner as they adjust the position of the carriage relative to the frame and are provided on the carriage).
As to claim 16, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the claim does not require that the hose be wrapped around said rod, thus any rod shaped member which allows for supporting, either directly or indirectly, of the hose reads on the claim. Accordingly, the vertical rods connected to the rails of the frame (see Fig.1 vertical portions extending from ref 20 to ref 22) can read on a bundle support rod as it supports the hose via supporting the hose reel as the slide carriage traverses the frame.
As to claim 20, Assmann teaches the system of claim 17, further comprising: the slide carriage defining generally a C-shape in cross section (see annotated figure above), with upper and lower carriage assemblies partially surrounding corresponding respective upper and lower engagement members of the frame (see annotated figure above), the frame being elongated and of uniform cross sectional shape along the entire length thereof (see Fig.1), the slide carriage and the frame thereby defining four distinct engagement surfaces for guiding the traversing movement of the slide carriage relative to the frame (see Fig.1 & annotated figure above).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assmann (DE3922400A1) in view of Parish (US5628585A).
As to claim 4, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the movement of the carriage utilize a rack and pinion system, where the rack is provided on the frame. Assmann does not disclose the use of a lead screw system for sliding the carriage along the frame. However, a screw system is a known alternative movement system in the art, as seen by Parish.
Parish discloses an art related sewer line treatment device (Col.1 lines 5-10), wherein it is known that a moveable carriage which is moved by a rack and pinion could alternatively be moved utilizing a screw system (Col.5 lines 5-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Assmann to utilize a screw rod system (equivalent to a driven lead screw) on the frame for movement of the carriage, as a rack and pinion system and a screw system are known alternatives in the art (Parish Col.5 lines 5-11). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known movement system in place of another, with a reasonable expectation success, especially when they are known alternatives within the art.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assmann (DE3922400A1) in view of Keller (DE4134886A1), Mueller (DE4223931A1), and Boon (US20070119997A1).
As to claim 5, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but does not disclose the presence of a vision system. However, the use of a camera and screen is known in the art, as seen by Keller, Mueller, and Boon.
Keller discloses an art related vehicle for management of drains (see title & Fig.1), wherein a camera (ref 18) and a display (ref 19) are provided in an area of the hose reel (ref 12) in order to monitor the area for operational safety [0024]
Mueller discloses an art related sewer cleaning device (abstract), wherein it is known to provide a camera (ref 17) on a frame in order to monitor operation. Further, a display (ref 18) is provided so that a user may observe and monitor the operation from the camera signal [0020-0021].
Boon discloses an art related reel apparatus provided on a vehicle (Fig.1), wherein a camera (ref 59) is provided along with a screen (ref 60) in order to obtain a good view of the cable unwinding [0159] and the functioning of the reel [0019]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Assmann to provide a camera and display in the area of the reel in order to monitor the area for operational safety ([0024]). Providing a camera in the area of the reel would also allow for monitoring of operation (Mueller [0020-0021] & Boon [0019, 0159]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assmann (DE3922400A1) in view of Wightman (US3930324A), Berry (US5311302A), Kim (US20210178981A1) and Yamazaki (US20190255945A1).
As to claim 6, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the controller is provided on the hose reel frame, but Assmann does not disclose the control panel being provided on a swing arm. However, providing a control panel on a movable arm is known in the art, as seen by Wightman. Further, vertical adjustment of a display unit is known in the art as seen by Berry, Kim, and Yamazaki.
Wightman discloses an art related vehicle utilized in the management of water pipes (Col.1 lines 8-10), which a skilled artisan understands also pertains to sewer lines. Wightman further discloses that a controller may be provided on a movable arm in order to allow an operator to control the vehicle element operation more easily (Col. 4 lines 14-20). Although Wightman does not disclose a movement in a vertical direction, it does desire the ability to move a controller to a user so that operation may be easier. Further, the ability to move a control unit within a vertical direction is known in the art, as seen by Berry, Kim, and Yamazaki.
Berry discloses a data management system for a vehicle (abstract), wherein a control panel (see Fig.6 ref 90) may be provided on a swing arm (Fig.6 ref 92) to allow for stowing of the panel when not in use (Col.7 lines 13-20). Berry and Assmann are related in the field of providing control panels for vehicles.
Kim discloses a display moving apparatus for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is shown that the display can be moved horizontally via a central rail [0051, 0055] and the height can be adjusted [0097] in order to improve usability of the display [0010]. A skilled artisan recognizes that displays can also be utilized as control panels. Kim and Assmann are related in the field of providing displays for vehicles.
Yamazaki discloses display attaching device for a vehicle, wherein a height of the display can be adjusted (abstract). A skilled artisan recognizes that displays can also be utilized as control panels. Yamazaki and Assmann are related in the field of providing displays for vehicles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Assmann to provide a swing arm on the hose reel frame in order to provide the controller in a horizontally movable manner, relative to the frame, so that operation is easier (Wightman Col. 4 lines 14-20). A skilled artisan would further find it obvious to provide height adjust capabilities to the arm in order to further improve usability (Kim [0010]). Alternatively, a swing arm with vertical displacing abilities may allow for stowing of the panel when not in use (Berry Col.7 lines 13-20). As a desire is to provide easier operation of the vehicle elements, and it is understood that users may be of varying height, a skilled artisan would naturally find it obvious to allow for height adjustability of the arm to allow for vertical movement of the controller relative to the hose reel frame.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assmann (DE3922400A1) in view of Fisco (US4199837A).
As to claim 7, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 1 but does not disclose a locking mechanism. However, the use of locking mechanisms on moveable hose reels is known in the art, as seen by Fisco. Fisco discloses an art related sewer cleaning vehicle (abstract), wherein a movable hose reel is provided on the vehicle (see Fig.1 ref 84). Fisco further disclose the use of a locking mechanism (e.g., a locking pin which couples with a hole) in order to permit or restrict movement as desired (Col.7 lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Assmann to implement a locking mechanism on the hose reel frame to lock the carriage relative to the frame in order to permit or restrict movement as desired (Fisco Col.7 lines 10-15).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assmann (DE3922400A1) in view of King (US5121959A), Verduyn (US6065796A), and Drasch (US6595573B1).
As to claim 11, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 8, but does not disclose the presence of a stabilizing roller. However, such a feature is known in the art, as seen by King and Verduyn.
King discloses a slidable component mounted to a vehicle (abstract), wherein stabilizing rollers (refs 13 or 28) are provided in conjunction with running rollers (refs 8 or 27) in order to stabilize movement and maintain alignment of the sliding component (abstract, Col.1 lines 45-50, Col.2 lines 60-65, & Col.3 lines 60-67). King showcases that the stabilizing rollers have an axis of rotation perpendicular to the running roller (e.g., vertical vs horizontal). King and Assmann are related in the mounting of sliding components to vehicles, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look towards other manners of mounting sliding elements to vehicles when attempting to improve a sliding motion.
Verduyn discloses a track and trolley system for use with a vehicle trailer (abstract) wherein stabilizing rollers (ref 54) are provided along with weight bearing rollers (ref 48) in order to provide sliding transport. The stabilizing rollers have an axis of rotation perpendicular to that of the weight bearing rollers (see Fig.5) and allow for stabilized movement of the trolley (abstract, Col.2 lines 40-60, Col.4 lines 50-65, & Col.5 lines 20-45). Verduyn and Assmann are related in the mounting of sliding components to vehicles, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look towards other manners of mounting sliding elements to vehicles when attempting to improve a sliding motion. Although King and Verduyn do not showcase the stabilizing roller contacting a back surface of a frame, such a feature would be obvious in view of Drasch.
Drasch discloses a bow configuration for sliding of an element on a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is shown that running rollers (Figs.1 & 4 ref 10) and guide rollers (Figs.1 & 4 ref 11) are utilized for movement of a carriage (ref 5). The running and guide rollers are provided in an arrangement where the rotational axis of the rollers are angled to one another, such that one roller rotates vertically and the other horizontally. Drasch further showcases that such rollers can be provided in a manner such that they interact with different surfaces of the body on which it slides including on a rear portion of the body (see Fig.4). Drasch and Assmann are related in the mounting of sliding components to vehicles, and one of ordinary skill in the art would look towards other manners of mounting sliding elements to vehicles when attempting to improve a sliding motion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Assmann to provide a stabilizing lateral roller in order to stabilize the movement of the carriage (King abstract, Col.1 lines 45-50, Col.2 lines 60-65, & Col.3 lines 60-67; Verduyn abstract, Col.2 lines 40-60, Col.4 lines 50-65, & Col.5 lines 20-45). A skilled artisan also recognizes that providing the roller so that it contacts a back surface of the frame merely amounts to a known (Drasch Figs.1 & 4) rearrangement of parts that would not affect operation of the carriage, thus one of ordinary skill in the art would find such a variation to be an obvious rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04).
As to claim 12, Modified Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 11, wherein the running roller (Assmann refs 28 & 30) have a horizontal axis of rotation. Since the stabilizing roller is perpendicular to the running roller, it would have a vertical axis of rotation which is parallel to a front surface of the frame.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assmann (DE3922400A1) in view of Mayer (US20170197536A1), Johnson (US4147194A), and De Vincent (US3851672A).
As to claim 14, Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 1, but does not disclose a bulkhead plate mounted on the slide carriage, where said hose is coupled to the bulkhead plate between the hose reel and water jetting source. However, it is known in the art that a hose is received by the reel from a water source on a vehicle utilized for sewer cleaning (i.e., a hose exists between the hose reel and water source), as seen by Mayer.
Mayer discloses an art related vehicle (e.g., Fig.16) with a hose reel for sewer cleaning (abstract), wherein it is shown that a hose reel is fed fluid from a water pump (ref 70) via a hose (e.g., see Figs.10-15 refs 72, 74, 76, & 78). A skilled artisan would reasonably expect that there exists at least some plate portion to which the hose is coupled in order to support the length of hose to the reel. Although Mayer does not explicitly showcase such a bulkhead plate feature, it is well-known that hoses should be supported by some element as seen by Johnson and De Vincent.
Johnson discloses a vehicle (abstract & Fig.1) with a reel assembly (Col.3 lines 50-55), wherein a plate like bracket (see ref 70, reads on a bulkhead plate) is utilized to support hoses and prevent the hose from becoming slack due to fouling on the hose (Col.1 lines 30-35). Johnson and Assmann are related in the field of vehicle utilizing reel assemblies.
De Vincent discloses hose assembly mounting bracket (see title & abstract) directed for use in vehicles (Col.1 lines 15-20) in order to support and secure a hydraulic hose on a vehicle (Col.1 line 63 to Col.2 line 8). The bracket is a plate like member (see Fig.1 ref 36 or 38) and reads on a bulkhead plate. De Vincent and Assmann are related in the field of hydraulic systems on a vehicle and their mounting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Assmann to provide a plate-like bracket to hold and secure the hose and prevent slackening of the hose due to potential fouling (Johnson Col.1 lines 30-35 & De Vincent Col.1 line 63 to Col.2 line 8). The only difference between the invention of claim 14 and that of Modified Assmann is the plate being mounted on the slide carriage. However, one of ordinary skill in the art recognizes that a hose support can be placed at any location, including the claimed position, so long as it remains capable of supporting the hose. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would find the mounting of the plate to the carriage as a mere rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Assmann (DE3922400A1) in view of Mayer (US20170197536A1), Johnson (US4147194A), and De Vincent (US3851672A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Shin (KR100314319B1).
As to claim 15, Modified Assmann teaches the vehicle of claim 14, wherein Mayer further showcases that the hose reel frame (ref 34) can be mounted within an enclosure (refs 58, 60, & 62) to protect the reel from the environment [0052]. As the hose can be supported on a portion of the bottom part of the enclosure when slack, it reads on a hose tray. Thus, a skilled artisan would find it obvious to further modify Assmann implement a similar enclosure like element to protect the reel from the environment (Mayer [0052]). Alternatively, assuming arguendo that the shroud does not read on a hose tray, a feature mounted at a bottom of the hose reel frame which is capable of supporting a hose is known in the art, as seen by Shin.
Shin discloses an art related reel system on a vehicle (abstract and Figs.1-2), wherein a tray (refs 100 & 200, reads on a tray as it is capable of supporting a hose) is mounted to a bottom of a hose reel frame (ref 11). Shin further discloses that the tray element allows for winding of the hose element without getting caught (page 2/5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Assmann to provide a hose tray in order to allow for winding or paying out of the hose without getting caught (Shin page 2/5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm 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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711