DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection in response to amendments filed 1/29/2026. Claims 1-7 and 9-17 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Based on the amendments made, the claims have overcome the previous 101 rejection. Applicant's arguments filed 1/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of Kock does not explicitly teach determining a change in data based on a modification of the robotic device. However, as discussed below, Kock discusses the risk profile being determined based on the signals from the sensor system of events in the vicinity and the location, speed, and orientation of the robotic device. Therefore, the risk profile data would change based on a change in the location, speed, or orientation of the robotic device as well as the sensor data related to a worker in the vicinity of the robotic device. Thus, Kock teaches the amended feature of the independent claims.
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: “program module” in claims 1 and 7-9, “control module” in claims 1 and 7-9, and “assessment module” in claims 1 and 9.
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. The claim limitations will be interpreted as described on page 4 lines 19-26 as modules implemented by a controller.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-11, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock (US 20110264266) in view of Tuoma (US 20230234247).
Regarding claim 1, Kock teaches a method for integrating a risk assessment of a collision between a robotic device and a human operator into a controller intended for the robotic device ([0052] discusses a robot 1 with a controller 2 and safety system where an impact risk profile is established), the method comprising:
reading command data from a program module, wherein the command data is intended for transmission to a control module when used as intended, by an assessment module ([0053] discusses reading stored data and input signals related to the path of the robot (location, speed, and orientation), which is interpreted as command data with these functions being carried out by the robot controller and a safety controller);
reading machine data from the control module, wherein the machine data specifies the robotic device, by the assessment module ([0053] discusses reading physical data related to the robot including weight, texture, and geometry of either the robot or a tool carried by the robot);
determining at least one hazard risk of at least one hazard based on at least one of the read command data or the read machine data and at least one saved associated risk profile, which contains information required for automatically determining a respective hazard risk, by the assessment module ([0053] discusses establishing an impact risk profile based on stored impact data which includes the stored data and physical data discussed above to determine a risk of impact);
classifying the determined respective hazard risk by the assessment module ([0054] discusses classifying the degree of risk giving an example of a risk result of low risk);
as a function of a result of the classification:
determining one or more measures for reducing the respective hazard risk ([0054] discusses reducing the risk by decreasing the speed of the robot via the controller)
outputting a warning to the user ([0055] discusses using an alarm signal); and
([0054] discusses reducing the risk by decreasing the speed of the robot via the controller);
wherein the data read from at least one of the program module or control module are read repeatedly, and responsive to a modification of the robotic device, currently read data is checked to determine whether a change with respect to previously read data corresponding to the modification of the robotic device also involves a change to at least one of the one or more respective hazard risks, and, responsive to a change to at least one of the one or more respective hazard risks, operations c), d), e), and f) are performed for the changed data ([0055] discusses an example of the system where the humans are working in the vicinity of the robot and because the system operates normally until a human behaves abnormally such as moving their head too close to the robot and then the robot initiates the safety precautions and further stating “due to the fact that the parts of the body 38a, 38b of the humans P31, P32 working in said zones 35a are treated independently, the safety system is always ready if anything unforeseen occurs” it is interpreted that the system reads the data continuously and is responsive to changes in the risk levels where [0031]-[0035] discuss the risk profile being based on the location, speed, and orientation of the robotic device where it is interpreted that a change (modification) in one of these values would change the data of the risk profile).
Kock does not explicitly teach outputting the determined one or more measures for respective selection by a user.
Tuoma teaches determining one or more measures for reducing the respective hazard risk and outputting the determined one or more measures for respective selection by a user and the user selecting the one or more measures ([0054] discusses reading out recommendation information for user selection with [0036] discussing the recommendation information including countermeasure proposal candidates).
Kock teaches an impact risk evaluation between a robot and a human. Tuoma teaches providing recommendation information for user selection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock with the user selection of Tuoma as this would allow a user to decide the appropriate response to the risk evaluation, giving the user more control and improving the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 2, Kock teaches wherein the at least one saved associated risk profile comprises one or more of:
information on a type of collision;
information on a type of body part of the human operator at risk from the collision ([0053] discusses the risk profile including harm values for different parts of the human body);
information on a position of a contact point of the robotic device involved in the collision ([0053] discusses the risk profile including harm values for different parts of the robot);
information on the posture of the human operator at the time of the collision
information on at least one of a frequency or probability of the collision ([0036] discusses the risk profile being based on probability of collision);
information on at least one way of avoiding the at least one hazard ([0053] discusses the risk profile including information on avoiding the hazard); or
information on a severity of damage of the collision ([0053] discusses the risk profile including the “degree of harm”).
Regarding claim 3, Kock teaches a risk profile but does not explicitly teach wherein before determining the at least one hazard risk, one or more of the at least one saved associated risk profile is linked by a user input to one or more respective program sections of the command data, wherein the user input specifies a condition of occurrence of the at least one hazard, which is assigned to the at least one hazard risk corresponding to the at least one saved associated risk profile.
Tuoma teaches wherein before determining the at least one hazard risk, one or more of the at least one saved associated risk profile is linked by a user input to one or more respective program sections of the command data, wherein the user input specifies a condition of occurrence of the at least one hazard, which is assigned to the at least one hazard risk corresponding to the at least one saved associated risk profile (Fig. 5 shows the conditions in which the robot is operating including speed and hand settings being input by a user as shown in Fig. 9 and the user can then specify the condition of occurrence of risk using Figs. 6-7 and with Fig. 11 showing this occurring before determining a risk level).
Kock teaches an impact risk evaluation between a robot and a human. Tuoma teaches providing recommendation information for user selection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock with the user selection of Tuoma as this would allow a user to decide the appropriate response to the risk evaluation, giving the user more control and improving the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 4, Kock teaches determining an impact risk profile but does not explicitly teach wherein before determining the respective hazard risk, after reading at least one of the command data or the machine data, one or more usage limits of the robotic device are defined by a user input, wherein the one or more usage limits limit at least one of a spatial range; speed range, or force range used by the robotic device during intended use.
Tuoma teaches wherein before determining the respective hazard risk, after reading at least one of the command data or the machine data, one or more usage limits of the robotic device are defined by a user input, wherein the one or more usage limits limit at least one of a spatial range; speed range, or force range used by the robotic device during intended use (Fig. 5 shows the conditions in which the robot is operating including speed usage limits being input by a user as shown in Fig. 9 and the user can then specify the condition of occurrence of risk using Figs. 6-7 and with Fig. 11 showing this occurring before determining a risk level).
Kock teaches an impact risk evaluation between a robot and a human. Tuoma teaches providing recommendation information for user selection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock with the user selection of Tuoma as this would allow a user to decide the appropriate response to the risk evaluation, giving the user more control and improving the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 5, Kock teaches determining an impact risk profile but does not explicitly teach wherein responsive to a determination that a particular risk profile is an incomplete risk profile that does not contain all of the information required for automatically determining the respective hazard risk, the user is requested to complete the incomplete risk profile.
Tuoma teaches wherein responsive to a determination that a particular risk profile is an incomplete risk profile that does not contain all of the information required for automatically determining the respective hazard risk, the user is requested to complete the incomplete risk profile (Figs. 8-11 show the process in which the user selects information for the risk profile and continues to request the user select profile information until the risk profile is complete).
Kock teaches an impact risk evaluation between a robot and a human. Tuoma teaches providing recommendation information for user selection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock with the user selection of Tuoma as this would allow a user to decide the appropriate response to the risk evaluation, giving the user more control and improving the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 7, Kock teaches wherein the one or more measures for reducing the respective hazard risk comprises specifying at least one of one or more movement limits, in the program module or at least one parameter for one or more safety functions, in the control module ([0054] discusses reducing the risk by decreasing the speed of the robot via the controller).
Regarding claim 9, Kock teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by a processor of a computing device ([0052] discusses a robot 1 with a controller 2 and safety system where an impact risk profile is established), cause the processor to;
read command data from a program module, wherein the command data is intended for transmission to a control module when used as intended by an assessment module ([0053] discusses reading stored data and input signals related to the path of the robot (location, speed, and orientation), which is interpreted as command data with these functions being carried out by the robot controller and a safety controller);
read machine data from the control module, wherein the machine data specifies a robotic device by the assessment module ([0053] discusses reading physical data related to the robot including weight, texture, and geometry of either the robot or a tool carried by the robot);
determine at least one hazard risk of at least one hazard based on at least one of the read command data or the read machine data and at least one save associated risk profile, wherein the at least one associated risk profile contains information required for determining a respective hazard risk by the assessment module ([0053] discusses establishing an impact risk profile based on stored impact data which includes the stored data and physical data discussed above to determine a risk of impact);
classify the respective hazard risk by the assessment module ([0054] discusses classifying the degree of risk giving an example of a risk result of low risk), and,
as a result of the classification:
i. determine one or more measures for reducing the respective hazard risk ([0054] discusses reducing the risk by decreasing the speed of the robot via the controller) and
ii. output a warning to the user ([0055] discusses using an alarm signal); and
([0054] discusses reducing the risk by decreasing the speed of the robot via the controller); wherein the data read from at least one of the program module or control module are read repeatedly, and responsive to a modification of the robotic device, currently read data is checked to determine whether a change with respect to previously read data corresponding to the modification of the robotic device also involves a change to at least one of the one or more respective hazard risks, and, responsive to a change to at least one of the one or more respective hazard risks, operations c), d), e), and f) are performed for the changed data ([0055] discusses an example of the system where the humans are working in the vicinity of the robot and because the system operates normally until a human behaves abnormally such as moving their head too close to the robot and then the robot initiates the safety precautions and further stating “due to the fact that the parts of the body 38a, 38b of the humans P31, P32 working in said zones 35a are treated independently, the safety system is always ready if anything unforeseen occurs” it is interpreted that the system reads the data continuously and is responsive to changes in the risk levels where [0031]-[0035] discuss the risk profile being based on the location, speed, and orientation of the robotic device where it is interpreted that a change (modification) in one of these values would change the data of the risk profile).
Kock does not explicitly teach outputting the determined one or more measures for respective selection by a user.
Tuoma teaches determining one or more measures for reducing the respective hazard risk and outputting the determined one or more measures for respective selection by a user and the user selecting the one or more measures ([0054] discusses reading out recommendation information for user selection with [0036] discussing the recommendation information including countermeasure proposal candidates).
Kock teaches an impact risk evaluation between a robot and a human. Tuoma teaches providing recommendation information for user selection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock with the user selection of Tuoma as this would allow a user to decide the appropriate response to the risk evaluation, giving the user more control and improving the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 10, Kock teaches a controller for a robotic device, for integrating a risk assessment of a collision between a human operator and the robotic device ([0052] discusses a robot 1 with a controller 2 and safety system where an impact risk profile is established), comprising:
a program module (controller 2/safety controller 4);
a control module (controller 2/safety controller 4); and
an assessment module (controller 2/safety controller 4), wherein the assessment module is configured to;
read at least one of command data from the program module, which data is provided for transmission to the control module during the intended use ([0053] discusses reading stored data and input signals related to the path of the robot (location, speed, and orientation), which is interpreted as command data with these functions being carried out by the robot controller and a safety controller), or machine data from the control module which specifies the robotic device; ([0053] discusses reading physical data related to the robot including weight, texture, and geometry of either the robot or a tool carried by the robot);
determine at least one hazard risk of at least one hazard based on the read data and at least one saved associated risk profile, which contains information required for automatically determining the at least one hazard risk([0053] discusses establishing an impact risk profile based on stored impact data which includes the stored data and physical data discussed above to determine a risk of impact);
classify the determined at least one hazard risk ([0054] discusses classifying the degree of risk giving an example of a risk result of low risk), and
as a function of a result of the classification either i) to determine one or more measures for reducing the at least one hazard risk ([0054] discusses reducing the risk by decreasing the speed of the robot via the controller)([0055] discusses using an alarm signal); and
([0054] discusses reducing the risk by decreasing the speed of the robot via the controller); wherein the data read from at least one of the program module or control module are read repeatedly, and responsive to a modification of the robotic device, currently read data is checked to determine whether a change with respect to previously read data corresponding to the modification of the robotic device also involves a change to at least one of the one or more respective hazard risks, and, responsive to a change to at least one of the one or more respective hazard risks, operations c), d), e), and f) are performed for the changed data ([0055] discusses an example of the system where the humans are working in the vicinity of the robot and because the system operates normally until a human behaves abnormally such as moving their head too close to the robot and then the robot initiates the safety precautions and further stating “due to the fact that the parts of the body 38a, 38b of the humans P31, P32 working in said zones 35a are treated independently, the safety system is always ready if anything unforeseen occurs” it is interpreted that the system reads the data continuously and is responsive to changes in the risk levels where [0031]-[0035] discuss the risk profile being based on the location, speed, and orientation of the robotic device where it is interpreted that a change (modification) in one of these values would change the data of the risk profile).
Kock does not explicitly teach outputting the determined one or more measures for respective selection by a user.
Tuoma teaches determining one or more measures for reducing the respective hazard risk and outputting the determined one or more measures for respective selection by a user and the user selecting the one or more measures ([0054] discusses reading out recommendation information for user selection with [0036] discussing the recommendation information including countermeasure proposal candidates).
Kock teaches an impact risk evaluation between a robot and a human. Tuoma teaches providing recommendation information for user selection. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock with the user selection of Tuoma as this would allow a user to decide the appropriate response to the risk evaluation, giving the user more control and improving the user’s experience.
Regarding claim 11, Kock teaches wherein the controller is included in a robotic device ([0052] “FIG. 1 shows a working robot 1 with a robot controller 2 and a robot safety system”).
Regarding claim 13, Kock teaches wherein the information on a type of body part of the human operator at risk from the collision includes at least one of a specification of the body part at risk or a biomechanical limit valve of the body part at risk ([0053] discusses the risk profile including harm values for different parts of the human body).
Regarding claim 14, Kock teaches wherein the information on a position of a contact point of the robotic device involved in the collision includes a shape of the robotic device at the contact point ([0053] discusses the risk profile including harm values for different parts of the robot and the stored impact data further including the geometry of either the robot or the tool the robot is holding where it is interpreted that this would be included in the harm values for the different parts of the robot)
Regarding claim 15, Kock teaches wherein the information on a severity of damage of the collision includes a severity of injury of the human operator in the collision ([0053] discusses the risk profile including the “degree of harm” to the human operator).
Regarding claim 16, Kock teaches wherein the one or more movement limits includes one or more speed limits ([0054] discusses reducing the risk by decreasing the speed of the robot via the controller).
Regarding claim 17, Kock teaches wherein the one or more safety functions includes an emergency shutdown ([0015] discusses the safety functions including a full stop (emergency shutdown)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock in view of Tuoma and further in view of Lewis (US 20170100838).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kock teaches classifying the risk with a low risk being an option as described above and outputting measures for user selection as described above but does not explicitly teach wherein in the classification of the determined respective hazard risk, the respective hazard risk is classified into one of three classes, a low risk class, medium risk class and high risk class, wherein a respective warning is output to the user when the respective hazard risk is classified as low risk or high risk, and wherein the one or more measures for reducing the respective hazard risk are determined and output for respective user selection when the respective hazard risk is classified as medium risk.
Lewis teaches wherein in the classification of the determined respective hazard risk, the respective hazard risk is classified into one of three classes, a low risk class, medium risk class and high risk class, wherein a respective warning is output to the user when the respective hazard risk is classified as low risk or high risk, and wherein the one or more measures for reducing the respective hazard risk are determined and ([0030] discusses classifying a risk mode as low, medium, or high risk and where the robotic actor takes actions based on the risk mode with high risk including outputting a warning, medium risk including changing speed, direction).
Modified Kock teaches determining a risk level and outputting measures based on the risk level. Lewis teaches determining robot actions based on low, medium, and high risk levels. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of modified Kock with the risk levels of Lewis as Lewis teaches that this allows for increased safety of human actors and enables human actors to better work with robots [0016].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kock in view of Tuoma and further in view of Takahashi (US 20180107174).
Regarding claim 12, Kock teaches determining an impact collision but does not explicitly teach wherein the information on a type of collision includes whether the collision is a jam or an impact collision.
Takahashi teaches wherein the information on a type of collision includes whether the collision is a jam or an impact collision ([0062] discusses categorizing collisions including whether a human has collided against the robot (impact) or is caught between the robot and a peripheral device (jam)).
Kock teaches determining an impact collision. Takahashi teaches categorizing collisions. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kock with the categorization of Takahashi as Takahashi teaches that this improves the detection accuracy of the robot and improves the ability of the human collaborative robot [0004].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE M JACKSON whose telephone number is (303)297-4364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-4:30 MT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached at (571) 270-3976. 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.
/D.M.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3657 /ABBY LIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights