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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 40 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The controller of claim 36, wherein the controller is configured to:
determine, during operation of the HVAC system in the de-rated operating mode, that the values of the input voltage are within the range of voltage values for a third threshold time period, subsequent to the second threshold time period; and operate the HVAC system in a normal operating mode in response to the determination that the values of the input voltage are within the range of voltage values for the third threshold time period, wherein the third threshold time period is greater than the first threshold time period and is greater than the second threshold time period.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 , 24-25, 28-29, 31-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5, 11, 12, 15, and19 of U.S. Patent No. 11768000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘000 teaches the limitations of ‘621 described below.
USPN 11768000
18/372621
Claims 1/11/18 A controller for a heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning (HVAC) system, wherein the controller is configured to:
detect an input voltage received as a power supply by the HVAC system;
determine the input voltage exceeds a threshold value;
in response to determining that the input voltage exceeds the threshold value:
identify a voltage variation event in response to a determination that a duration of time during which the input voltage exceeds the threshold value is greater than a first threshold time period; and
identify the voltage variation event in response to a determination that the input voltage trends away from the threshold value for a second threshold time period, wherein the second threshold time period is less than the first threshold time period; and
operate a vapor compression system of the HVAC system in a de-rated operating mode to condition an air flow in response to identifying the voltage variation event.
2. The controller of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to:
initiate a timer upon determining the input voltage exceeds the threshold value;
monitor the duration of time based on the timer; and
reset the timer in response to determining that the input voltage is below the threshold value.
5. The controller of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to compare the input voltage with a previously received input voltage to determine whether the input voltage trends away from the threshold value.
12. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the first range of voltage values comprises a first upper threshold voltage value and a first lower threshold voltage value, and the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
monitor the first duration of time based on the input voltage being greater than the first upper threshold voltage value or less than the first lower threshold voltage value.
15. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
determine a quantity of instances in which the voltage variation event has been identified over a time interval; and
operate the HVAC system in a lockout mode in response to determining the quantity of instances exceeds a threshold quantity of identified voltage variation events.
19. The HVAC system of claim 18, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to operate the compressor at a de-rated nominal capacity, to operate the compressor at a predetermined stage, to suspend operation of the HVAC system and restart the operation of the HVAC system after an anti-short cycle delay period, or any combination thereof upon initialization of the de-rated operating mode.
21. (new) A controller for a heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning (HVAC) system, wherein the controller is configured to:
detect an input voltage received by the HVAC system from a power source;
determine that the input voltage is outside a range of voltage values for a first threshold time period;
subsequent to lapse of the first threshold time period, identify a voltage variation event based on a determination that the input voltage trends away from the range of voltage values; and
operate a compressor of the HVAC system in a de-rated operating mode to condition an air flow in response to identification of the voltage variation event.
claims 24-25, 29, 31, 36 (see mapping to claims 1, 11, and 18)
Claims 32-33
Claim 22, 34, 37
Claim 29
Claim 35
Claim 28, 39
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 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) 21-22, 24-26, 28, 29-31, 34, 36- 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scuka (PG/PUB 20150130622) in view over Bickel (PG/PUB PG/PUB 20200410839) in view over Butler (PG/PUB 20140034284) in view over Fujita (PG/PUB 20180314238).
Claim 21.
Scuka teaches a controller for a heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning (HVAC) system but does not expressly teach the threshold time period; determining a trend subsequent to the lapse; and de-rated limitations described below. Bickel teaches the threshold time period lapse and subsequent limitations; Fujita teaches the trend limitations; and Butler teaches the de-rated limitations described below, wherein the controller is configured to:
detect an input voltage received by the HVAC system from a power source (Figure 1, 0003)
Sucka does not teach the first threshold time period described below. Bickel teaches the threshold time period described below (e.g. as interpreted, duration above a threshold)
determine that the input voltage is outside a range of voltage values (e.g. threshold ranges of voltage values) for a first threshold time period (Bickel, Figure 6-620, 0017, 0020, 0030, 0041, 0046, 0048, 0029, first threshold time period, i.e., duration exceeding the threshold for a first type of voltage variation, Bickel, 0011, 0021-23, 0032, 0058, 0068, 0090-91, 0158)
subsequent to lapse of the first threshold time period (e.g. as interpreted, upon the event ending, i.e., duration exceeding a threshold and the event ending then perform analysis), identify a voltage variation event based on a determination that the input voltage trends away from the range of voltage values (Bickel, ABSTRACT, 0006, 0023, 0059, 0067 (e.g. see “subsequent” trend analysis following voltage event detection , 0156-0158 e.g. see first and second thresholds, each having event duration, and see determining a second event exceeds a second, higher threshold after the first threshold duration lapsed, and see determining a voltage event in responsive to the voltage exceeding a duration above a threshold as reading on “subsequent to a lapse of a first threshold time period, see Fujita, ABSTRACT, Figure 6, 0031 for trend determination to identify abnormal events)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Bickel, namely determining the duration in which a voltage exceeds at least one of a first or second threshold for determining a voltage variation event and providing subsequent analysis to the event variations including trends, to the teachings of Scuka, namely determining voltage variation events based on threshold comparisons, would achieve an expected and predictable result of determining voltage variations via determining durations of the voltage variations relative to first and second thresholds for quantifying the type of voltage variation and further providing subsequent analysis. Bickel is reasonably pertinent to a problem of quantifying voltage variation events, ABSTRACT< summary of invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art applying the teachings of Fujita, namely determining abnormal conditions based on trend analysis for defined time periods, to the teachings of Scuka, as modified by Bickel, namely providing further analysis of the voltage event, would achieve an expected and predictable result of using trends to identify voltage anomalies. Fujita is reasonably pertinent to anomaly detection, ABSTRACT, summary of invention. As applied, trend analysis is conducted subsequent to the voltage event such that an additional analysis is implemented.
The applied combination does not teach the de-rated mode described below. Butler teaches the de-rated mode described below.
operate a compressor of the HVAC system in a de-rated operating mode to condition an air flow in response to identification of the voltage variation event (Butler, 0026)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Butler, namely de-rating compressor operation based on voltage variations, to the teachings of Scuka, as modified, namely determining voltage variation events and implanting remedial actions, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods while providing a benefit of HVAC protection, as described, Summary of Invention.
Claim 22.
The controller of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to compare a most recently received value of the input voltage with a previously received value of the input voltage to determine whether the input voltage trends away from the range of voltage values (Fujita, ABSTRACT, Figure 6)
Claim 24.
The controller of claim 21, wherein the controller is configured to identify the voltage variation event in response to a determination that the input voltage trends away (e.g. as interpreted, above or below the upper and/or lower thresholds over a time duration, i.e., general direction voltage is developing or changing(trend), supra claim 21, see Fujita, Figure 6, ABSTRACT), from the range of voltage values (e.g. thresholds) for a second threshold time period (supra claim 21, Fujita, ABSTRACT, Figure 6, 0031 e.g. see second threshold time as a an earlier time period relative to later time periods of Figure 6 and/or predetermined time periods)
Claim 25.
The controller of claim 24 but does not expressly teach the less limitation. Fujita teaches the less limitations,
wherein the second threshold time period (e.g. time period of trend, Figure 6 Fujita, t1 is less than the minutes of Bickel) is less than the first threshold time period (e.g. time period of abnormal voltage above threshold, Bickel, 0059 – minute for example) (supra claim 24, Fujita, 0031, Figure 6 see at least a first time period less (t0 vs tn) than a second time period, i.e., determining a trend in the first several seconds vs the entire period, supra claim 21 for a first threshold time period measured second, minutes, etc, Bickel, 0059, 0063)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Scuka, as modified, namely determining trends over defined time period/first threshold, to the teachings of Fujita, namely determining trends over multiple time periods, each having a less than or greater than range, Figure 6-t1 is less, see also Bickel, 0058-59-greater time periods, would as a matter of design choice determine trends existing within a second threshold time period less than the first time period to identify short, medium, and long term trends or patterns existing with select time period. Fukita teaches determining trends within “predetermined periods of time-caution, warning, none,” 0031, Figure 6. Fujita teaches an earlier time period less than a longer time period, Figure 6, supra claim 21 for a longer time period Bickel, 0059. One would be motivated to identify the voltage behavior as rising, decreasing, or pre-empting/pre-indicating an anomaly to provide a caution within small time periods, as per Fujita, prior to the voltage variation of a larger time period of Bickel. The comparison of a trend over a second threshold time to the first time period in which voltages exceed a threshold duration provides insight into trending voltages over shorter time periods relative to longer time periods/durations associated with voltage levels exceeding a threshold. Accordingly, trending over a shorter time period relative to the larger time period of Bickel provides a warning or caution.
Claim 26.
The controller of claim 21 but does not expressly teach the greater limitations. Scuka teaches the greater limitations, wherein the controller is configured to identify the voltage variation event in response to a determination the input voltage is outside the range of voltage values for a second threshold time period (supra claim 21 for voltage variation of a greater duration), wherein the second threshold time period is greater than the first threshold time period (supra claim 21 where a voltage variation event has a longer duration than voltage events of shorter durations, 0059.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Scuka, as modified, namely determining voltage events having first, second, and third threshold time periods, 0059, to the teachings of Scuka, namely providing multiple time periods of shorter, medium, and longer duration, would as a matter of design choice determine a second threshold time as greater than the first threshold time period for quantifying the types of voltage variation types. The motivation is to identify voltage variations with a longer duration/second threshold time period relative to shorter durations/first threshold time.
Claim 28.
The controller of claim 21, wherein, to operate the compressor in the de- rated operating mode, the controller is configured to operate the compressor at a de-rated nominal capacity, to suspend operation of the compressor for a predetermined time period, to transition operation of the compressor to a predetermined stage, or a combination thereof (supra claim 21, Butler)
Claim 29.
The controller of claim 21, wherein the range of voltage values is a first range of voltage values, and the controller is configured to: determine that the input voltage is outside a second range of voltage values for a second threshold time period (supra claim 21 for voltage event of greater duration relative to higher threshold, Bickel mapping); and identify the voltage variation event based on the determination that the input voltage is outside the second range of voltage values for the second threshold time period (supra claim 21 for determining voltage duration exceeds second threshold for identifying type, Bickel mapping)
Claim 30.
The controller of claim 29 but does not expressly teach the greater limitations. Scuka, as modified, teaches the greater limitations,
wherein the first range of voltage values (e.g. lower threshold) is within (e.g. within a range) the second range of voltage values (upper threshold, supra claim 21), and the first threshold time period (e.g. see voltage variation with higher durations) is greater than the second threshold time period, supra claim 24 for shorter and longer event durations, Bickel, 0059)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Scuka, as modified, namely determining voltage variations relative to first and second thresholds, to the teachings of Scuka, namely determining voltage variations of a short or long duration, 0059, would as a matter of design choice determine the first threshold time is greater than the second threshold time for determining the type of voltage event, see 0059 for designating high and short durations/time thresholds.
Claim 31.
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising computer- executable instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
detect voltage values of an input voltage received by a heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning (HVAC) system from a power source; supra claim 21, and identify a voltage variation event in response to a determination that: the voltage values are outside of a range of voltage values for a threshold time period; and the voltage values trend away from the range of voltage values subsequent to a lapse of the threshold time period; supra claim 21
operate a compressor of the HVAC system in a de-rated operating mode to condition an air flow in response to identification of the voltage variation event, supra claim 21
Claim 34.
The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 31, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to compare a most recently received voltage value of the voltage values with a previously received voltage value of the voltage values to determine whether the voltage values trend away from the range of voltage values, supra claim 22
Claim 37.
The controller of claim 36, wherein, to determine that the values of the input voltage trend away from the range of voltage values the controller is configured to iteratively compare a most recently received value of the input voltage with at least one previously received value of the input voltage for the second threshold time period, supra claim 22 (Fujita, Figure 6- see computing trends for at least a second threshold time period
Claim 36. A controller for a heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning (HVAC) system, wherein the controller is configured to:
detect an input voltage received by the HVAC system from a power source, supra claim 21
determine that values of the input voltage are outside a range of voltage values for a first threshold time period, supra claim 21
identify a voltage variation event in response to a determination that the values of the input voltage trend away from the range of voltage values for a second threshold time period, subsequent to the first threshold time period; supra claim 21, and operate the HVAC system in a de-rated operating mode to condition an air flow in response to identification of the voltage variation event, supra claim 21
Claim 38.
The controller of claim 36, but does not expressly teach the greater limitations. Scuka teaches the greater limitations
wherein the controller is configured to identify the voltage variation event in response to a determination that the values of the input voltage are outside the range of voltage values for a third threshold time period, wherein the third threshold time period is greater than the first threshold time period (Bickel, 0059 e.g. see voltage variation with a greatest duration, 30 cycles -3 seconds relative to shorter threshold time periods.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Scuka, as modified, namely determining voltage events having first, second, and third threshold time periods, 0059, to the teachings of Scuka, namely providing multiple time periods of shorter, medium, and longer duration, would as a matter of design choice determine a third threshold time as greater than the first threshold time period for quantifying the types of voltage variation types. In other words, designating the longest duration as one type of variation vs designating the shortest duration as another variation.
Claim 39.
The controller of claim 36, wherein, to operate the HVAC system in the de-rated operating mode, the controller is configured to operate a compressor of the HVAC system at a de-rated nominal capacity, to suspend operation of the compressor for a predetermined time period, to transition operation of the compressor to a predetermined stage, or a combination thereof (supra claim 21, Butler)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scuka (PG/PUB 20150130622) in view over Bickel (PG/PUB PG/PUB 20200410839) in view over Butler (PG/PUB 20140034284) in view over Fujita (PG/PUB 20180314238) in view over Teachman et al. (PG/PUB 20200116766)
Claim 23.
The controller of claim 21 but does not teach the average value but Teachman teaches the average value,
wherein the controller is configured to compare a most recently received value of the input voltage with an average value of a set of previously received values of the input voltage to determine whether the input voltage trends away from the range of voltage values (Teachman, 0101 e.g. see comparing measurements to average measurements or expected, supra claim 21 for obtaining voltage measurements )
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Teachman, namely monitoring power systems for specific events, to the teachings of Scuka, as modified, namely determining voltage variations, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Teachmen is reasonably pertinent to a problem of event identification, ABSTRACT, summary of invention
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scuka (PG/PUB 20150130622) in view over Butler (PG/PUB PG/PUB 20200410839) in view over Butler (PG/PUB 20140034284) in view over Fujita in view over Yuan et al. (PG/PUB 20220320859)
Claim 27.
The controller of claim 21 but does not teach the operate limitations but Yuan teaches the operate limitations,
wherein the controller is configured to:
determine, during operation of the compressor in the de-rated operating mode, that the input voltage is within the range of voltage values for a second threshold time period; and operate the compressor in a normal operating mode in response to the determination that the input voltage is within the range of voltage values for the second threshold time period (Yuan, ABSTRACT, 0012-13 e.g. see operating or device startup when a normal condition exceeds for a duration, supra claim 21 for controlling normal and de-rated modes based on voltage durations)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Yuan for enabling normal operation based on stabilized voltage levels, to the teachings of Scuka, as modified, namely controlling compressor modes based on voltage levels, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Yuan is pertinent to a problem of ensuring stable operation based on voltage levels as described, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Claims 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scuka (PG/PUB 20150130622) in view over Butler (PG/PUB PG/PUB 20200410839) in view over Butler (PG/PUB 20140034284) in view over Fujita in view over Eberts (PG/PUB 20180373282).
Claim 32.
The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 31 but does not teach the timer limitations but Eberts teaches the timer limitations,
wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
initiate a timer in response to a determination that a voltage value of the voltage values is outside of the range of voltage values; identify the lapse of the threshold time period based on a duration of time indicated by the timer (Bickel, 0012, 0334, Eberts, 0027 e.g. see timer start upon abnormal voltage)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Eberts for starting and resetting timers based on voltage levels relative to thresholds, to the teachings of Scuka, as modified by Bickel, namely employing clocks for voltage variations, would achieve an expected and predictable result of determining durations of an event relative to thresholds.
Claim 33.
The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 32, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to reset the timer in response a determination that an additional voltage value of the voltage values is within the range of voltage values (Eberts, 0017 e.g. see timer reset upon normal voltage range)
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scuka (PG/PUB 20150130622) in view over Butler (PG/PUB PG/PUB 20200410839) in view over Butler (PG/PUB 20140034284) in view over Fujita in view over Warren ( PG/PUB 20190056131)
Claim 35. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium of claim 31 but does not teach the quantity limitations but Warren teaches the quantity limitations,
wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
determine a quantity of voltage variation events identified over a time interval; and transition operation of the HVAC system to a lockout mode in response to a determination the quantity of voltage variation events identified over the time interval exceeds a threshold quantity (Warren, 0148 e.g. see instances exceeding a threshold and opening swtiches/lockout, supra claim 31 for determining voltage variations and associated HVAC operation modes)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Warren, namely disabling power to a device upon a voltage count exceeding a threshold, to the teachings of Scuka, as modified, namely providing power to a HVAC system, would achieve an expected and predictable result if disabling power based on voltage instances exceeding a threshold.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Claim 22 relevancy
20150130622 20200116766 -0101 20160321553 -averaging for comparison) 20110190978-055-0062 20160321553 (duration/level) 20130325158
Claim 24
20200410839 7490145 20200410839-0036 10353375 20160323157
Claim 25
10353375 20210103006-0033-35 20180284733 20170261403-0044 0074*
20160323157 20160321553
claim 27
20130006438-0019 20090319091 20220320859
Trends
20170146432 20240085878 20060265182
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights