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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended subject matter indicated as allowable into claim 1 and new independent claims 21 and 22. After further search and consideration new art rejections have been made of claims 1 and 22.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the claim objection and it is therefore withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear how the outer extension’s cross section can be consistent along the entire circumference when the outer extension has two portions with different height and transition portions with a slope that will have different cross sections.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the first portion of the outer side wall" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner notes that the first portion of the outer side wall is recited in claim 17 but not in a parent claim of claim 18.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-9, 11-13, 17, 19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degenhardt et al. (US 2016/0348693 A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2010/0248605 A1) and Hirose et al. (JP 2019-19762 A).
Regarding claim 1, Degenhardt teaches a housing (Degenhardt 1) for an HVAC blower, comprising:
A wall (see Degenhardt figure 1) that supports and encloses a fan (Degenhardt 8) within an internal volume therein, the wall defines an inlet aperture (Degenhardt 2) that directs airflow into a suction inlet of the fan (see Degenhardt figure 1) such that rotation of the fan urges air into the internal volume through the inlet aperture;
The inlet aperture is defined by an outer boundary (Degenhardt 3, 4, and 5), the outer boundary formed within the wall (see Degenhardt figure 2), and includes an outer extension (Degenhardt 3);
The outer extension extends upwardly from the wall around the entire circumference of the wall that forms the inlet aperture (see Degenhardt figure 1);
wherein the outer extension comprises an inner side wall (see annotated figure), a top portion (see annotated figure) , and an outer side wall (see annotated figure), wherein the inner side wall is proximate to the inlet aperture (see annotated figure) and the outer side wall is away from the inlet aperture and transitions to the wall (see annotated figure);
wherein a first continuous portion of the outer boundary extends to a height that is at least 5 mm (Degenhardt [0040], “The bell mouth region 3 is semicircular in shape and in the sample embodiment shown has a radius of 5.5 mm”) above a position where the wall transitions into the outer side wall.
PNG
media_image1.png
371
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Degenhardt figure 2 (annotated)
Degenhardt is silent regarding a grill that extends across the inlet aperture, and a second continuous portion of the outer boundary extending to a height of at least 10mm above the position where the wall transitions into the outer side wall and first and second transition portions, wherein the height of the outer boundary along the first and second transition portion includes a slope between the respective heights of the first and second continuous portion.
However, Sharma teaches a housing (Sharma 38 and 98) for an HVAC blower comprising: A wall (see Sharma figure 6) that encloses a fan (Sharma 40) within an internal volume therein (see Sharma figure 11), the wall defines an inlet aperture (see Sharma figure 11) that directs air into a suction inlet of the fan (see Sharma figure 11) such that rotation of the fan urges air into the internal volume through the inlet aperture; A grill (Sharma 54) that comprises a plurality of legs (see Sharma figure 10) that are arranged thereon to establish a plurality of openings (Sharma 74) therein to allow air flow therethrough, wherein a shape of the grill is established by the collective shape of the plurality of legs and the openings established by the plurality of legs (see Sharma figure 10); And a filter (Sharma 52) is configured to be supported by the grill (see Sharma figure 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degenhardt's housing to incorporate Sharma's teachings of a grill supporting a filter to produce a predictable result of preventing debris from entering the air conditioner thereby protecting the fan and other downstream HVAC equipment and also improving the air quality.
However, Hirose teaches a blower module (see figure 2) comprising an outer extension (Hirose 123 and 125) around an inlet (Hirose 121) with a first continuous portion (Hirose 123) and a second continuous portion (Hirose 125) , each comprising an inner side wall, a top portion, and an outer side wall (see annotated figure)that extends to a height of 6mm (Hirose [0048]) above the first portion (examiner notes that 6mm above the first portion is consistent with applicant’s recitation of at least 10mm of height for the second continuous portion and at least 5mm height for the first continuous portion) and the second portion limits oblique airflows (Hirose [0051]) and further comprising first and second transition portions (Hirose 125a and 125b) disposed at respective ends of the first and second continuous portions (see Hirose figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
430
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hirose figure 3 (annotated)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degenhardt's outer extension to incorporate Hirose's teaching of an upward extension with two continuous portions with first and second transition portions, one 6mm taller than the first portion to produce a predictable result of limiting oblique airflow into the inlet to limit turbulence. Examiner notes that Hirose's 6mm second continuous portion atop Degenhardt's 5mm outer extension will be greater than 10mm tall.
Sharma and Hirose are silent regarding a slope between the first and second continuous portions. However, at the time the invention was made it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a slope between the two portions instead of a vertical wall, because applicant has not disclosed that the slope provides an advantage or is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with a sloped surface or a vertical wall between the two portions because both shapes of surface perform the function of joining the two portions with different heights equally well. (see MPEP § 2144.04 IV B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the first and second continuous portions to have a slope between the respective heights.
Regarding claim 3, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 1 teach the two continuous portions of the outer extension have different cross sections. However, at the time the invention was made it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cross sections of the first and second continuous portions to be consistent instead of having different cross sections, because applicant has not disclosed that the consistent cross sections provide any advantage, are used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected applicant’s invention to perform equally well with a consistent cross section for the outer extension and with different cross sections because the different cross sections perform the function of directing airflow into the inlet aperture equally well (see MPEP § 2144.04 IV B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the outer extension to have a consistent cross section.
Regarding claim 4, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 1 teach the outer extension has a radius of 5.5mm (Degenhardt [0040]) therefore it has a diameter in between the inner side wall and outer sidewall of 11mm.
Regarding claim 5, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 1 teach the height of the firs continuous portion of the outer boundary is 5.5 mm (Degenhardt [0040]) and the second continuous portion (Hirose 125) extends to a height of 6mm (Hirose [0048]) above the first portion for a height above a position where the wall transition into the outer wall of greater than 10mm.
Regarding claim 8, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 6 teach the first continuous portion (Hirose 123) extends over greater than half of the circumference of the inlet aperture (see Hirose figure 3) and the second continuous portion (Hirose 125) extends over the remaining portion of the circumference of the inlet aperture.
Regarding claim 9, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 2 teach the inlet aperture is round (see Degenhardt figure 1) and the diameter of the inlet aperture is 105mm (Degenhardt [0040], “The intake region 2 has a diameter of 105 mm”).
However, Degenhardt further teaches diameter's up to 110mm are acceptable (Degenhardt [0049], “The diaphragm openings of 90 mm and 100 mm were satisfactory and 110 mm was still acceptable.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a diameter of 110mm to limit noise generation without limiting airflow as much as smaller diameter openings (see Degenhardt table at end of paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 2 teach the top wall transitions from the inner side wall and the outer side wall (see Degenhardt figure 2) and the top wall portion includes a curved portion (see Degenhardt figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Degenhardt , Sharma, and Hirose are silent regarding the center of the top wall being planar.
However, applicant's specification is silent regarding any advantage to a planar portion of the
top wall between curved portions that connect to the side walls and a court has held that a change of shape is obvious absent evidence the particular configuration is significant.(see MPEP § 2144.04 IV B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the top wall to have a planar center portion to produce a predictable result of decreasing the inner diameter of the opening without altering the outer dimension of the outer extension.
Regarding claim 13, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 1 teach a first portion of the inner side wall (Degenhardt 4) that borders the inlet aperture is straight (see Degenhardt figured 2), wherein the first portion transitions to a second portion (Degenhardt 3) with a different profile (see Degenhardt figure 2), wherein the second portion transitions to the top portion (see Degenhardt figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 13 are silent regarding the first portion being at an angle of about 40 degrees.
. However, Applicant’s specification is silent regarding significance of the angle of the first portion and a court has held that the shape is a matter of choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence the shape is significant. (see MPEP § 2144.04 IV B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the portion of the sidewall to have an angle of about 40 degrees.
Regarding claim 15, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 14 are silent regarding the second portion being straight and having an angle of about 10 degrees from a vertical axis.
However, Applicant’s specification is silent regarding significance of the shape and angle of the second portion and a court has held that the shape is a matter of choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art absent evidence the shape is significant. (see MPEP § 2144.04 IV B)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the second portion of the sidewall to be straight and have an angle of about 10 degrees from a vertical axis.
Regarding claim 16, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 15 teach the first portion extends around an entire circumference of the inlet aperture (see Degenhardt figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 13 teaches the outer side wall includes a first portion that transitions form the wall (see annotated figure), wherein the first portion is straight for at least a majority of its length.
PNG
media_image3.png
248
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Degenhardt figure 2 (annotated)
Regarding claim 18, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 14 teach the outer side wall comprises a first portion (see annotated figure) that extends from the wall at an angle that is within a range of about 90 degrees to about 92 degrees (examiner notes that Degenhardt’s outer sidewall comprises a curved portion and a straight portion at an angle and that the curved portion is at 90 degrees with respect to the wall that extends towards the outer side wall) with respect to a portion of the wall that extends toward the outer side wall.
PNG
media_image4.png
327
641
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Degenhardt figure 2 (annotated)
Regarding claim 20, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 1 teach the width of the cross section of the outer extension is at least 10mm (Degenhardt [0040], “The bell mouth region 3 is semicircular in shape and in the sample embodiment shown has a radius of 5.5 mm”, examiner notes that a radius of 5.5mm means the width is at least 11mm) between the inner side wall and the outer side wall at the greatest distance therebetween, the inlet aperture is round (see Degenhardt figure 1) and the diameter of the inlet aperture is 105mm (Degenhardt [0040], “The intake region 2 has a diameter of 105 mm”).
However, Degenhardt further teaches diameter's up to 110mm are acceptable (Degenhardt [0049], “The diaphragm openings of 90 mm and 100 mm were satisfactory and 110 mm was still acceptable.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a diameter of up to 107mm to limit noise generation without limiting airflow as much as smaller diameter openings (see Degenhardt table at end of paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 20, Degenhardt, Sharma, and Hirose as applied to claim 1 teach the width of the cross section of the outer extension is at least 10mm (Degenhardt [0040], “The bell mouth region 3 is semicircular in shape and in the sample embodiment shown has a radius of 5.5 mm”, examiner notes that a radius of 5.5mm means the width is at least 11mm) between the inner side wall and the outer side wall at the greatest distance therebetween, wherein a height of the cross-section of the outer boundary is at least 10mm (Hirose [0048]) (examiner notes that 6mm above Degenhardt’s portion with a 5.5mm radius results in a total height of 11.5mm) vertically above a position where the wall transitions into an outer side wall, and teach the inlet aperture is round (see Degenhardt figure 1) and the diameter of the inlet aperture is 105mm (Degenhardt [0040], “The intake region 2 has a diameter of 105 mm”).
However, Degenhardt further teaches diameter's up to 110mm are acceptable (Degenhardt [0049], “The diaphragm openings of 90 mm and 100 mm were satisfactory and 110 mm was still acceptable.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a diameter of up to 107mm to limit noise generation without limiting airflow as much as smaller diameter openings (see Degenhardt table at end of paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 21, Degenhardt teaches a housing (Degenhardt 1) for an HVAC blower, comprising:
A wall (see Degenhardt figure 1) that supports and encloses a fan (Degenhardt 8) within an internal volume therein, the wall defines an inlet aperture (Degenhardt 2) that directs airflow into a suction inlet of the fan (see Degenhardt figure 1) such that rotation of the fan urges air into the internal volume through the inlet aperture;
The inlet aperture is defined by an outer boundary (Degenhardt 3, 4, and 5), the outer boundary formed within the wall (see Degenhardt figure 2), and includes an outer extension (Degenhardt 3);
The outer extension extends upwardly from the wall around the entire circumference of the wall that forms the inlet aperture (see Degenhardt figure 1);
wherein the outer extension comprises an inner side wall (see annotated figure), a top portion (see annotated figure) , and an outer side wall (see annotated figure), wherein the inner side wall is proximate to the inlet aperture (see annotated figure) and the outer side wall is away from the inlet aperture and transitions to the wall (see annotated figure);
the width of the cross section of the outer extension is at least 10mm (Degenhardt [0040], “The bell mouth region 3 is semicircular in shape and in the sample embodiment shown has a radius of 5.5 mm”, examiner notes that a radius of 5.5mm means the width is at least 11mm) between the inner side wall and the outer side wall at the greatest distance therebetween,
the inlet aperture is round (see Degenhardt figure 1) and the diameter of the inlet aperture is 105mm (Degenhardt [0040], “The intake region 2 has a diameter of 105 mm”)
a first portion of the inner sidewall that borders the inlet aperture is straight (see annotated figure below), wherein the first portion transitions to a second portion with a different profile, wherein the second portion transition to the top portion (see annotated figure below); and wherein the first portion is at an angle of about 40 degrees from a vertical axis (see annotated figure below, examiner notes that the sidewall has a curve from vertical to horizontal and some portion will be at exactly 40 degrees from a vertical axis).
PNG
media_image5.png
353
491
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Degenhardt figure 2 (annotated)
Degenhardt further teaches diameter's up to 110mm are acceptable (Degenhardt [0049], “The diaphragm openings of 90 mm and 100 mm were satisfactory and 110 mm was still acceptable.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a diameter of up to 107mm to limit noise generation without limiting airflow as much as smaller diameter openings (see Degenhardt table at end of paragraph [0057]).
Degenhardt is silent regarding a grill that extends across the inlet aperture, and the height of the cross-section of the outer boundary being at least 10mm vertically above a position where the wall transitions into the outer side wall.
However, Sharma teaches a housing (Sharma 38 and 98) for an HVAC blower comprising: A wall (see Sharma figure 6) that encloses a fan (Sharma 40) within an internal volume therein (see Sharma figure 11), the wall defines an inlet aperture (see Sharma figure 11) that directs air into a suction inlet of the fan (see Sharma figure 11) such that rotation of the fan urges air into the internal volume through the inlet aperture; A grill (Sharma 54) that comprises a plurality of legs (see Sharma figure 10) that are arranged thereon to establish a plurality of openings (Sharma 74) therein to allow air flow therethrough, wherein a shape of the grill is established by the collective shape of the plurality of legs and the openings established by the plurality of legs (see Sharma figure 10); And a filter (Sharma 52) is configured to be supported by the grill (see Sharma figure 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degenhardt's housing to incorporate Sharma's teachings of a grill supporting a filter to produce a predictable result of preventing debris from entering the air conditioner thereby protecting the fan and other downstream HVAC equipment and also improving the air quality.
However, Hirose teaches a blower module (see figure 2) comprising an outer extension (Hirose 123 and 125) around an inlet (Hirose 121) with a first portion (Hirose 123) and a second portion (Hirose 125) , that extends to a height of 6mm (Hirose [0048]) above the first portion () and the second portion limits oblique airflows (Hirose [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degenhardt's outer extension to incorporate Hirose's teaching of an upward extension with a second portion 6mm taller than the first portion to produce a predictable result of limiting oblique airflow into the inlet to limit turbulence. Examiner notes that Hirose's 6mm second continuous portion atop Degenhardt's 5mm outer extension will be greater than 10mm tall.
Regarding claim 22, Degenhardt teaches a housing (Degenhardt 1) for an HVAC blower, comprising:
A wall (see Degenhardt figure 1) that supports and encloses a fan (Degenhardt 8) within an internal volume therein, the wall defines an inlet aperture (Degenhardt 2) that directs airflow into a suction inlet of the fan (see Degenhardt figure 1) such that rotation of the fan urges air into the internal volume through the inlet aperture;
The inlet aperture is defined by an outer boundary (Degenhardt 3, 4, and 5), the outer boundary formed within the wall (see Degenhardt figure 2), and includes an outer extension (Degenhardt 3);
The outer extension extends upwardly from the wall around the entire circumference of the wall that forms the inlet aperture (see Degenhardt figure 1);
wherein the outer extension comprises an inner side wall (see annotated figure), a top portion (see annotated figure) , and an outer side wall (see annotated figure), wherein the inner side wall is proximate to the inlet aperture (see annotated figure) and the outer side wall is away from the inlet aperture and transitions to the wall (see annotated figure);
the width of the cross section of the outer extension is at least 10mm (Degenhardt [0040], “The bell mouth region 3 is semicircular in shape and in the sample embodiment shown has a radius of 5.5 mm”, examiner notes that a radius of 5.5mm means the width is at least 11mm) between the inner side wall and the outer side wall at the greatest distance therebetween,
the inlet aperture is round (see Degenhardt figure 1) and the diameter of the inlet aperture is 105mm (Degenhardt [0040], “The intake region 2 has a diameter of 105 mm”).
PNG
media_image1.png
371
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Degenhardt figure 2 (annotated)
Degenhardt further teaches diameter's up to 110mm are acceptable (Degenhardt [0049], “The diaphragm openings of 90 mm and 100 mm were satisfactory and 110 mm was still acceptable.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select a diameter of up to 107mm to limit noise generation without limiting airflow as much as smaller diameter openings (see Degenhardt table at end of paragraph [0057]).
Degenhardt is silent regarding a grill that extends across the inlet aperture, and the height of the cross-section of the outer boundary being at least 10mm vertically above a position where the wall transitions into the outer side wall.
However, Sharma teaches a housing (Sharma 38 and 98) for an HVAC blower comprising: A wall (see Sharma figure 6) that encloses a fan (Sharma 40) within an internal volume therein (see Sharma figure 11), the wall defines an inlet aperture (see Sharma figure 11) that directs air into a suction inlet of the fan (see Sharma figure 11) such that rotation of the fan urges air into the internal volume through the inlet aperture; A grill (Sharma 54) that comprises a plurality of legs (see Sharma figure 10) that are arranged thereon to establish a plurality of openings (Sharma 74) therein to allow air flow therethrough, wherein a shape of the grill is established by the collective shape of the plurality of legs and the openings established by the plurality of legs (see Sharma figure 10); And a filter (Sharma 52) is configured to be supported by the grill (see Sharma figure 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degenhardt's housing to incorporate Sharma's teachings of a grill supporting a filter to produce a predictable result of preventing debris from entering the air conditioner thereby protecting the fan and other downstream HVAC equipment and also improving the air quality.
However, Hirose teaches a blower module (see figure 2) comprising an outer extension (Hirose 123 and 125) around an inlet (Hirose 121) with a first portion (Hirose 123) and a second portion (Hirose 125) , that extends to a height of 6mm (Hirose [0048]) above the first portion () and the second portion limits oblique airflows (Hirose [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degenhardt's outer extension to incorporate Hirose's teaching of an upward extension with a second portion 6mm taller than the first portion to produce a predictable result of limiting oblique airflow into the inlet to limit turbulence. Examiner notes that Hirose's 6mm second continuous portion atop Degenhardt's 5mm outer extension will be greater than 10mm tall.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Degenhardt et al. (US 2016/0348693 A1) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2010/0248605 A1) and Hirose et al. (JP 2019-19762 A). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant's admission in specification.
Regarding claim 10, Degenhardt and Sharma are silent regarding the grill having a spherically shaped outer circumference.
However, applicants’ figures 2a and 2b are identified by applicant as prior art and show a spherically shaped grill that extends to a height exceeding that of an outer extension.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Degenhardt's grill to have a spherical shape to direct airflow from different directions all towards the center of the inlet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R BRAWNER whose telephone number is (571)272-0228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/CHARLES R BRAWNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
