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 .
Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed on 04/07/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s arguments, that Berkley does not disclose “a portion of each weight of the plurality of weight is exposed to an exterior of the ballast dummy system while the plurality of weights is engaged with the at least one bar” because “Berkley discloses the insert 45 as being disposed within the canister 42, which is disposed within a body 20 of the test dummy device 100, such that the insert weight 45 does not appear to be exposed to an exterior of the test dummy device 100”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully submits that the claim only requires that “a portion of each weight […] is exposed to an exterior of the ballast dummy system” without specifying which portion of each weight would be configured to be exposed to which exterior of the system. The phrase “while the plurality of weights is engaged with the at least one bar” does not appear to define that the plurality of weights are engaged with the at least one bar at the same time. The phrase can alternatively be understood as each weight of the plurality of weights is engaged with the at least one bar. In this case, Berkley teaches that a portion of each weight of the plurality of weights is exposed to an exterior of the ballast dummy system while the plurality of weights is engaged with the at least one bar (i.e., each insert weight 45 of the set of weights 60 is exposed to the exterior through the upper opening of body 20) (see Fig. 2). The examiner respectfully submits that Berkley’s Fig. 2 clearly shows a portion of each weight 45 being exposed to an exterior through the opening of body 20 even while being disposed within the canister 42.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Berkley does not teach “removing, while the plurality of weights is retained on the bar, the sensor from the first weight”, the examiner respectfully agrees. However, in view of the current claim amendments, the examiner respectfully submits that Zamora teaches retaining a sensor (i.e., onboard sensor 42) (see Fig. 3) in a first weight of a plurality of weights (i.e., the onboard sensor(s) 42 and/or electronic measurement device(s) 44 may be strategically located at any point along the axial length and/or radial direction of the overall body 22 (e.g., main body portion 24, supports 32, and/or adjustable weights 30)) (see Column 6, line 45, to Column 8, line 32); and removing, while the plurality of weights is retained on the bar, the sensor from the first weight (i.e., the onboard sensor(s) 42 and/or electronic measurement device(s) 44 may be strategically located at any point along the axial length and/or radial direction of the overall body 22 (e.g., main body portion 24, supports 32, and/or adjustable weights 30) and the wired connection may be made by removing the electronic measurement device 44 and then connecting it to the external computer 46, or any computer) (see Column 6, line 45, to Column 8, line 32). Since the claim does not specify how a sensor is configured to be retained in a first weight of a plurality of weights, the limitation would be understood as any coupling or attachment to the weights would be considered as the sensor being configured to be retained in the first weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-15, 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 claims 1 and 12, the phrase “a portion of each weight of the plurality of weights is exposed to an exterior of the ballast dummy system while the plurality of weights is engaged with the at least one bar” in the claims is indefinite as being ambiguous. The phrase appears to refer to either each one of the plurality of weights being engaged with the at least one bar at a time (1); or that the plurality of weights being configured to form a stack onto the at least one bar (2). The claims do not appear to explicitly disclose that the plurality of weights being engaged with the at least one bar comprises a stack formed of individual weights being engaged with, stacked onto, or otherwise with the at least one bar. For examination purposes, the phrase will be interpreted as each one of the plurality of weights being engaged with the at least one bar one weight at a time. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 13, the phrase “the plurality of weights is configured” is indefinite as being ambiguous. The phrase appears to refer to each one or individual ones of the plurality of weights being/is configured (3); or to the plurality of weights being/are configured (4). For examination purposes, the phrase will be interpreted as individual weight being/is configured to engage with the one or more bars one weight at a time. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites “a ballast dummy” and “a first weight of a plurality of weights” without defining the relationship between the dummy and the weights. In other words, the method claim does not appear to disclose that the dummy and the weights are coupled to one another or even related at all. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections (see MPEP § 2172.01).
Regarding claim 22, the phrase “the plurality of weights is engaged” is indefinite as being ambiguous. The phrase appears to refer to each one or individual ones of the plurality of weights being/is engaged (5); or to the plurality of weights being/are engaged (6). For examination purposes, the phrase will be interpreted as individual weight being/is engaged with the at least one bar one weight at a time. Further clarification is respectfully requested.
Claims 2-7, 9-10, 14-15, 17-19, 21, and 23-24 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zamora et al. (Pat. No. US 11,796,424) (hereafter Zamora).
Regarding claim 20, Zamora teaches a method, comprising:
retaining a ballast dummy (i.e., simulated payload apparatus 12) (see Fig. 1) in a seat (i.e., flight table 14) (see Fig. 1) of a ride vehicle (i.e., flight motion system 10) (see Fig. 1), wherein the ballast dummy comprises a bar extending in an axial direction (i.e., the bracket 60 may have an internal passage 62 that connects with the internal passage 36 of the support 32, thereby allowing connections, such as wires, to be run therethrough) (see Fig. 3);
retaining a sensor (i.e., onboard sensor 42) (see Fig. 3) in a first weight of a plurality of weights (i.e., the onboard sensor(s) 42 and/or electronic measurement device(s) 44 may be strategically located at any point along the axial length and/or radial direction of the overall body 22 (e.g., main body portion 24, supports 32, and/or adjustable weights 30)) (see Column 6, line 45, to Column 8, line 32);
retaining the first weight to the bar (i.e., each of the plurality of weights 30 is configured as a plate or cylindrical round that is slidably mountable or slidably removable from the respective supports 32) (see Column 5, line 1, to Column 6, line 44);
retaining one or more additional weights of the plurality of weights to the bar (i.e., the plurality of adjustable weights 30 may be moved along the body 22 of the SPA 12 and/or removed as needed to represent a mass and/or center of gravity of the actual payload to be simulated during the flight motion system test) (see Column 5, line 1, to Column 6, line 44); and
removing, while the plurality of weights is retained on the bar, the sensor from the first weight (i.e., the onboard sensor(s) 42 and/or electronic measurement device(s) 44 may be strategically located at any point along the axial length and/or radial direction of the overall body 22 (e.g., main body portion 24, supports 32, and/or adjustable weights 30) and the wired connection may be made by removing the electronic measurement device 44 and then connecting it to the external computer 46, or any computer) (see Column 6, line 45, to Column 8, line 32).
Regarding claim 21, Zamora teaches retaining, while the plurality of weights is retained on the bar the sensor in a second weight of the one or more additional weights of the plurality of weights (i.e., the plurality of adjustable weights 30 may be moved along the body 22 of the SPA 12 and/or removed as needed to represent a mass and/or center of gravity of the actual payload to be simulated during the flight motion system test) (see Column 5, line 1, to Column 6, line 44), wherein the second weight is different than the first weight (i.e., the set of adjustable weights 30 may include weights having different masses, densities and/or shapes, which may affect the mass, center of gravity and/or moment of inertia of the SPA 12) (see Column 5, line 1, to Column 6, line 44).
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 1-2, 4-7, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkley (Pub. No. US 2016/0379525) (hereafter Berkley) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (JP 2000162086) (hereafter Tsuchiya, all references are made to the English translation of the Japanese patent).
Regarding claim 1, Berkley teaches a ballast dummy system, comprising:
a base support (i.e., flat base 43) (see Fig. 3) configured to be retained in a seat of a ride vehicle of an amusement ride; at least one bar coupled to the base support and extending in an axial direction; and
a plurality of weights (i.e., a set of multiple distinct test weights 60) (see paragraph section [0041]), wherein each weight of the plurality of weights comprises at least one axial hole configured to engage the at least one bar to retain each weight on the base support (i.e., the insert weight 45 (with a centerbore) to be lowered into the canister 42 over the lifting rod 50) (see Fig. 3);
wherein the at least one bar is configured to block rotation of the plurality of weights (i.e., weight system 40 must be located to ensure that the centerline of the lifting rod 50 passes through the center of mass of the test dummy device so that the test dummy device 100 may be moved and lowered onto a surface without shifting) (see paragraph section [0035]), and
wherein a portion of each weight of the plurality of weights is exposed to an exterior of the ballast dummy system while the plurality of weights is engaged with the at least one bar (i.e., each insert weight 45 of the set of weights 60 is exposed to the exterior through the upper opening of body 20) (see Fig. 2); but does not explicitly teach the at least one bar is configured to block rotation of the weight about a longitudinal axis of the at least one bar.
Regarding the plurality of weights and the rotation block, Tsuchiya teaches a plurality of weights (i.e., multiple weights 8) (see Fig. 3), wherein each weight of the plurality of weights comprises at least one axial hole configured to engage the at least one bar to retain each weight on the base support (i.e., the weight fixing bracket 72 is for fixing the weight 8 supported by the support rod 71, and has a through-hole (not shown) through which the support rod 71 penetrates and weights 8 are passed through support rod 71) (see Fig. 3);
wherein the at least one bar is configured to block rotation of the plurality of weights about a longitudinal axis of the at least one bar (i.e., the weight fixing bracket 72 is for fixing the weight 8 supported by the support rod 71) (see Fig. 3), and
wherein a portion of each weight of the plurality of weights is exposed to an exterior of the ballast dummy system while the plurality of weights is engaged with the at least one bar (i.e., the weights 8 are exposed to the exterior of the main body 2 while engaged with support rod 71) (see Fig. 1). In view of the teaching of Tsuchiya, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a weight(s) retention mechanism in order to maintain the center of mass and to prevent the weight(s) from shifting or moving around too much.
Regarding claim 2, Berkely teaches that the at least one bar is configured to constrain motion of the plurality of weights in a lateral plane (i.e., weight system 40 must be located to ensure that the centerline of the lifting rod 50 passes through the center of mass of the test dummy device so that the test dummy device 100 may be moved and lowered onto a surface without shifting) (see paragraph section [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Berkley teaches that a respective top portion of the at least one bar is configured to extend past the at least one axial hole of each weight of the plurality of weights to retain each weight on the base support (i.e., at least the lifting eye portion of the center lifting rod 50) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Berkley teaches that a fastener (i.e., lifting eye may be threadably removable) (see Fig. 2) configured to retain the plurality of weights via an engagement of the fastener and the top portion of the at least one bar (i.e., the lifting eye may be threadably removable to enable the insert weight 45 (with a centerbore) to be lowered into the canister 42 over the lifting rod 50) (see paragraph section [0035]).
Regarding claim 6, Berkley teaches that the plurality of weights comprises a first weight and a second weight, and the first weight comprises a first weight value and the second weight comprises a second weight value (i.e., a test kit 101 including a test dummy device 100 combined with a set of multiple distinct test weights 60. Each of the set of weights 60 has a unique weight while having a common geometry to engage the test dummy device 100 such that each may be independently added to the test dummy device 100 in the manner described above) (see paragraph section [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Berkley teaches that the base support comprises a back support configured to be disposed between the plurality of weights and the seat of the ride vehicle, and the back support is configured to block the plurality of weights from making contact with a back of the seat (i.e., canister 42 and the back portion of the body 20) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 22, Berkley teaches that the portion of each weight of the plurality of weights is accessible to an operator while the plurality of weights is engaged with the at least one bar (i.e., each one of the insert weight 45 of the set of weights 60 is exposed to the exterior and is accessible to an operator through the upper opening of body 20) (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 23, Berkley teaches that each weight of the plurality of weights is configured to disengage from the at least one bar (i.e., lifting eye may be threadably removable to enable the insert weight 45 (with a centerbore) to be lowered into the canister 42 over the lifting rod 50. The insert weight 45 is provided with lifting lugs for convenience in handling) (see paragraph section [0035]).
Regarding claim 24, Berkley teaches that the portion of each weight comprises an outer surface of each weight (i.e., each one of the insert weight 45 of the set of weights 60 is exposed to the exterior and is accessible to an operator through the upper opening of body 20) (see Fig. 2); but does not explicitly teach that the portion of each weight comprises an outer radial surface of each weight. However, Tsuchiya teaches that the portion of each weight comprises an outer radial surface of each weight (i.e., the outer radial surfaces of each one of the stacked plurality of weights 8) (see Fig. 3). In view of the teaching of Tsuchiya, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have designed the apparatus to expose certain portions of the weights in order to facilitate insertion, adjustments, and removal of the weights. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, and a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV))
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkley (Pub. No. US 2016/0379525) (hereafter Berkley) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (JP 2000162086) (hereafter Tsuchiya, all references are made to the English translation of the Japanese patent) and in further view of McPherson et al. (Pat. No. US 4,873,867) (hereafter McPherson).
Regarding claim 3, Berkley as modified by Tsuchiya as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach at least one weight of the plurality of weights comprises a recess configured to retain one or more sensors. However, McPherson teaches at least one weight of the plurality of weights (i.e., dummy 10) (see Fig. 7) comprises a recess (i.e., force site cavities 12 and 14) (see Fig. 7) configured to retain one or more sensors (i.e., accelerometers mounted to the mounting assemblies 20 and 54) (see Column 2, line 60, to Column 3, line 8; and Column 4, lines 28-53). In view of the teaching of McPherson, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added sensors to the dummy system in order to measure the impact forces and assessing human occupant safety.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkley (Pub. No. US 2016/0379525) (hereafter Berkley) in view of Tsuchiya et al. (JP 2000162086) (hereafter Tsuchiya, all references are made to the English translation of the Japanese patent) and in further view of Krull (Pat. No. US 7,540,832) (hereafter Krull).
Regarding claim 9, Berkley as modified by Tsuchiya as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the base support comprises a first protrusion disposed on an axial-facing surface of the base support and offset from the at least one bar. However, Krull teaches that the base support comprises a first protrusion disposed on an axial-facing surface of the base support and offset from the at least one bar (i.e., guide rods 212, 214, 219) (see Fig. 2). In view of the teaching of Krull, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the guide rods in order to further prevent the weights from shifting or moving around too much and changing the center of mass of the dummy system.
Regarding claim 10, Berkley as modified by Tsuchiya and Krull as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that a first weight of the.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkley (Pub. No. US 2016/0379525) (hereafter Berkley) in view of McPherson et al. (Pat. No. US 4,873,867) (hereafter McPherson).
Regarding claim 12, Berkely teaches a ballast dummy system, comprising:
a base support (i.e., flat base 43) (see Fig. 3) configured to be retained in a seat of a ride vehicle (i.e., a conventional ride seat platform 31) (see Fig. 2);
one or more bars coupled to the base support and extending in an axial direction (i.e., center lifting rod 50) (see Fig. 2); and
a plurality of weights (i.e., a set of multiple distinct test weights 60) (see paragraph section [0041]), wherein each weight of the plurality of weights comprises one or more axial holes configured to engage respective bars of the one or more bars (i.e., the insert weight 45 (with a centerbore) to be lowered into the canister 42 over the lifting rod 50) (see Fig. 3),
wherein a portion of each weight of the plurality of weights is exposed to an exterior of the ballast dummy system while the plurality of weights is engaged with the one or more bars (i.e., each one of the insert weight 45 of the set of weights 60 is exposed to the exterior through the upper opening of body 20) (see Fig. 2); but does not explicitly teach
at least one weight of the plurality of weights comprises one or more recesses configured to retain one or more sensors
Regarding the sensors, McPherson teaches that at least one weight of the plurality of weights (i.e., dummy 10) (see Fig. 7) comprises one or more recesses configured to retain one or more sensors (i.e., accelerometers mounted to the mounting assemblies 20 and 54) (see Column 2, line 60, to Column 3, line 8; and Column 4, lines 28-53). In view of the teaching of McPherson, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added sensors to the dummy system in order to measure the impact forces and assessing human occupant safety.
Regarding claim 13, Berkley teaches that the plurality of weights is configured to be arranged in one or more different orders on the one or more bars (i.e., a test kit 101 including a test dummy device 100 combined with a set of multiple distinct test weights 60. Each of the set of weights 60 has a unique weight while having a common geometry to engage the test dummy device 100 such that each may be independently added to the test dummy device 100 in the manner described above) (see paragraph section [0041]).
Regarding claim 14, Berkley teaches that one or more fasteners configured to retain the plurality of weights via an engagement of each fastener of the one or more fasteners and a respective bar of the one or more bars (i.e., the lifting eye may be threadably removable to enable the insert weight 45 (with a centerbore) to be lowered into the canister 42 over the lifting rod 50) (see paragraph section [0035]).
Regarding claim 15, Berkley teaches that the at least one weight of the plurality of weights is configured to engage the base support (i.e., the lifting eye may be threadably removable to enable the insert weight 45 (with a centerbore) to be lowered into the canister 42 over the lifting rod 50) (see paragraph section [0035]); but Berkley as modified by McPherson as disclosed above does not explicitly teach a key-slot interface. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable interface depending on the coupling structure. Furthermore, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)).
Regarding claim 17, Berkley as modified by McPherson as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the one or more recesses are disposed on an outer profile of the at least one weight of the plurality of weights. However, McPherson teaches that the one or more recesses are disposed on an outer profile of the at least one weight of the plurality of weights (i.e., force site cavities 12 and 14) (see Fig. 7). In view of the teaching of McPherson, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the sensor accommodation recesses at the outer profile in order to simplify installation and maintenance of the equipment. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-C)).
Regarding claim 18, Berkley as modified by McPherson as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that the one or more bars comprise a plurality of bars, the one or more axial holes comprise a plurality of axial holes, and a first spacing of the plurality of bars corresponds to a second spacing of the plurality of axial holes. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added addition bars and corresponding coupling holes so as to further improve handling stability. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 (VI-B))
Regarding claim 19, Berkley as modified by McPherson as disclosed above does not directly or implicitly teach that at least one bar of the one or more bars includes a non-cylindrical shape, at least one respective axial hole of the one or more axial holes includes a corresponding non-cylindrical shape configured to mate with the at least one bar having the non-cylindrical shape; wherein, when mated, the non-cylindrical shape of the at least one bar and the corresponding non-cylindrical shape of the at least one respective axial hole block rotation of a respective weight of the plurality of weights about the at least one bar. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the bar having any suitable shapes as an obvious design choice. Furthermore, it has been held that insignificant changes to shape which do not contain critical design requirements are a matter of choice which one having of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed limitation is significant (see MPEP 2144.04 (IV-B)).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAN M. TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0307. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11:30am - 7:00pm.
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, Laura Martin can be reached on (571)-272-2160. 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.
/Tran M. Tran/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights