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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application file on 08 January 2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 May 2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 8, 15 and 20 are NOT being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “translatable” in view of the specification is that is the definition of “translation” relating to mathematics “a transformation in which the origin of a coordinate system is moved to another position so that each axis retains the same direction or, equivalently, a figure or curve is moved so that it retains the same orientation to the axes.” However, the figs. show a pivot around a fixed axis where the orientation changes around the axis. When viewed from the side view of least figs. 3B and 4B, this definition is not clear that it meets the Applicant’s intent of the claim language (See comparison below). The Examiner also considered “translatory” which is defined as “of, relating to, or involving uniform motion in one direction” however this also is not shown in the comparison as the orientation of the object changes as it moves around the axis and it moves in at least two directions (up and over/back). The Examiner considers “translatable” to be a sliding motion as the position will change though the orientation stays the same.
PNG
media_image1.png
370
689
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
The term “forward passenger support interface” in claims 1, 10 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “forward” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Forward is a directional used to show a relation with placement of a noun. It is not clear if “forward” is related to one of the following when viewed with the spec. and drawings: (1) pontoon boat 100, (2) passenger (not shown), (3) seat back 115, or (4) a view “looking forward”. Fig. 1 shows seat back 115 facing AFT, a passenger whose back is against the seat back 115 would be supported on their AFT side. Therefore, the claim language is not clear as to if the directional “forward” is relating to the placement of the back in relation to the pontoon boat or another feature that the examiner would have to find in the prior art. The examiner provides a comparison of fig. 1 and a passenger for applicant’s consideration. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “forward passenger support interface” to be “first passenger support interface”.
PNG
media_image2.png
748
1298
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The term “upper passenger support interface” in Claims 2, 10 and 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “upper” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Upper is a directional used to show a relation with placement of a noun. It is not clear if “upper” is relating to as the associated reference direction or object is not clear. It is not clear if “upper” is related to one of the following when viewed with the spec. and drawings: (1) pontoon boat 100, (2) passenger (not shown) or (3) seat bottom 111. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets “upper passenger support interface” to be “second passenger support interface”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a portion" in line 8. Claim 1 line 5 recites “a first portion” and line 6 recites “a second portion”. It is not clear if "a portion" is “a first portion”, “a second portion” or another “portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 recite the limitation “a/the forward passenger support interface” which is unclear when viewed with the spec. and figs. as to the structure the examiner should look for in the prior art as it not defined. The spec. para. [0039] recites “…the passenger seat 110 includes a seat back 115 that has a forward passenger support interface 116…”. Fig. 2A has at least reference characters “116”, “115” and “118” all pointing to the same item. It is not clear to the examiner if “a/the forward passenger support interface” is additional structure such as a surface, cover, fabric or cushion, -OR- if this is intended use “for supporting an aft portion of the boat passenger”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claimed language of “a/the forward passenger support interface” to be “a/the first cushion”.
Claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected based on the independent claims 1, 10 and 16 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ).
Claims 2, 10 and 16 recite the limitation “a/the upper passenger support interface” which is unclear when viewed with the spec. and figs. as to the structure the examiner should look for in the prior art as it not defined. The spec. para. [0036] recites “…The passenger seats 110 include a seat bottom 111 that has an upper passenger support interface 112…”. Fig. 3A has at least reference characters “111” and “112” all pointing to the same item. It is not clear to the examiner if “a/the upper passenger support interface” is additional structure such as a surface, cover, fabric or cushion, -OR- if this is intended use “for supporting a bottom portion of the boat passenger”. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claimed language of “a/the upper passenger support interface” to be “a/the second cushion”.
Claims 8, 15 and 20 all recite “translatable” and are unclear when viewed with the examiner’s interpretation of the word “translation” and “translatory” (See claim interpretation above) along with the spec. and drawings. The applicant may clarify the claim language or state which definition of “translatable” the applicant is using on the record. The Examiner reminds the Applicant that no new matter may be added to the disclosure in the amendment, see 35 U.S.C. 132(a), 37 C.F.R. 1.121(f) and MPEP § 608.04.
The terms “…lower… upper…” in claim 10 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “…lower… upper…” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The terms “…lower… upper…” are directionals which require a direction and a distance between two objects or surfaces of the same object. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the claimed language of “…lower extent… upper extent…” to be “…first extent… second extent… where the second extent is positioned above the first extent on a vertical axis…”.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Park {박상욱} (KR 20170001242 U). (See at least: figs. 3(a)-(c) reproduced below)
PNG
media_image3.png
351
557
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a seat (seat 100; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) for a boat passenger (unlabeled person; See at least: Fig. 3(c) and text copy page 2 of 8, first para. under “background-art” “…Conventionally, passenger transportation means such as a train, a car, a ship, an airplane, etc. have a plurality of seats so that passengers can sit comfortably, and the headrest is provided at the upper part of the seat to support the back of the head of the passenger…” where Park does not limit the type of transportation and recites “ship…passenger” is known in the art.), the seat comprising:
a seat back (seatback 103; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) having a forward passenger support interface (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where the examiner interprets a first cushion from the image), the seat back comprising:
a main support (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(b) best shows the seatback 103 having groove 110) having a recess (groove 110; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)), and
a supplemental support (headrest 111; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) movable relative to the main support (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(b) which best show linear movement interpreted as up and down) between
a first position (See at least: Fig. 3(b) showing the headrest 111 in a down position) wherein a first portion (See at least: Fig. 3(b) showing bottom portion of headrest forms part of seatback 103’s cushion) of the supplemental support forms part of the forward passenger support interface and
a second position (See at least: Fig. 3(a) showing the headrest 111 in a up position) wherein a second portion (See at least: Fig. 3(a) showing top portion of the headrest forms part of seatback 103’s cushion) of the supplemental support forms part of the forward passenger support interface, wherein
at least a portion (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(b) where the bottom portion of headrest 111 is spaced apart in fig. 3(a) and received in fig. 3(b).) of the supplemental support is received in the recess of the main support in the first position (See at least: Fig. 3(b) where the bottom portion of headrest 111 is received in groove 110 such that the bottom of the headrest 111 touches the seatback 103) and is spaced apart from the recess in the second position (See at least: Fig. 3(a) where the bottom portion of headrest 111 is spaced apart from the surface where the groove 110 meets the seatback 103).
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Park discloses further comprising: a seat bottom (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) best shows a seat having a surface for a passenger to place their lower extremities on.) having an upper passenger support interface (seat cushion 101; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) sized and shaped to support legs and feet of the boat passenger (See at least: Fig. 3(c) where the passenger shown is changed with that of a passenger who is smaller, a child or an infant, such that the feet on these passengers are supported).
Regarding claim 3, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Park discloses wherein the main support comprises a center portion (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) best shows a center portion), and laterally opposed support members (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where figs. 3(a)-(b) best show support members on opposite sides of groove 110.), the center portion extending between the laterally opposed support members, and the recess being formed between the laterally opposed support members (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(b) best shows the groove 110 and unlabeled laterally opposed support members).
Regarding claim 4, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 3 as noted above. Additionally, Park discloses wherein the main support defines a top edge (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where seatback 103 has a top edge) and a bottom edge (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) has a dashed line that best represents a bottom edge of seatback 103), and wherein the recess extends at least partially between the top edge and the bottom edge of the main support (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where figs. 3(a)-3(b) best shows the range of groove 110).
Regarding claim 8, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, Park discloses wherein the supplemental support is translatable (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(b) which best shows that the headrest 111 moves linearly up and down without changing its orientation around the axis of the linear movement.) between the first position and the second position.
Regarding claim 10, Park discloses a seat (seat 100; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) for a boat passenger (unlabeled person; See at least: Fig. 3(c) and text copy page 2 of 8, first para. under “background-art” “…Conventionally, passenger transportation means such as a train, a car, a ship, an airplane, etc. have a plurality of seats so that passengers can sit comfortably, and the headrest is provided at the upper part of the seat to support the back of the head of the passenger…” where Park does not limit the type of transportation and recites “ship…passenger” is known in the art.), the seat comprising:
a seat bottom (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) best shows a seat having a surface for a passenger to place their lower extremities on.) having an upper passenger support interface (seat cushion 101; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) sized and shaped to support legs and feet of the boat passenger (See at least: Fig. 3(c) where the passenger shown is changed with that of a passenger who is smaller, a child or an infant, such that the feet on these passengers are supported); and
a seat back (seatback 103; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) having a forward passenger support interface (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where the examiner interprets a first cushion from the image), the seat back comprising:
a main support (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(b) best shows the seatback 103 main support surface) having a lower extent (unlabeled ; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) best shows the lower area of the seatback 103; where lower is interpreted by the examiner as a mostly vertical direction or axis, up/down, in which a setback is positioned in, it may be slightly angled.) and an upper extent (unlabeled ; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) best shows the upper area of the seatback 103; where upper is interpreted by the examiner as a mostly vertical direction or axis, up/down, in which a setback is positioned in, it may be slightly angled.), and
a supplemental support (headrest 111; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) movable relative to the main support (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(b) which best show linear movement interpreted as up and down) between
a first position (See at least: Fig. 3(b) showing the headrest 111 in a down position), wherein a first portion (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(b) best shows the top surface of the headrest 111 is below that of the setback 103 top surface/edge) of the supplemental support is positioned lower than a top edge (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where seatback 103 has a top edge) of the upper extent of the main support (See at least: fig. 3(b)), and
a second position (See at least: Fig. 3(a) showing the headrest 111 in a up position), wherein the first portion of the supplemental support is positioned higher than the upper extent of the main support (See at least: fig. 3(b) with fig. 2a, where the combination of the figs. show that it is known that the headrest may have extra cushion that extends above a top surface/edge of seatback 103 or extend further than a top surface/edge of the seatback 103).
Regarding claim 11, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Park discloses wherein the main support comprises a center portion (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) best shows a center portion), and laterally opposed support members (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where figs. 3(a)-(b) best show support members on opposite sides of groove 110.), the center portion extending between the laterally opposed support members, and a recess (groove 110; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) being formed between the laterally opposed support members.
Regarding claim 12, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, Park discloses wherein the main support further includes a bottom edge (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) has a dashed line that best represents a bottom edge of seatback 103), and wherein the recess extends at least partially between the top edge and the bottom edge of the main support (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) best shows the groove 110’s placement with respect to the top/bottom edge of the main support).
Regarding claim 15, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 10 as noted above. Additionally, Park discloses wherein the supplemental support is translatable (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(b) which best shows that the headrest 111 moves linearly up and down without changing its orientation around the axis of the linear movement.) between the first position and the second position.
Regarding claim 16, Park discloses a seat (seat 100; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) for a boat passenger (unlabeled person; See at least: Fig. 3(c) and text copy page 2 of 8, first para. under “background-art” “…Conventionally, passenger transportation means such as a train, a car, a ship, an airplane, etc. have a plurality of seats so that passengers can sit comfortably, and the headrest is provided at the upper part of the seat to support the back of the head of the passenger…” where Park does not limit the type of transportation and recites “ship…passenger” is known in the art.), the seat comprising:
a seat bottom (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) best shows a seat having a surface for a passenger to place their lower extremities on.) having an upper passenger support interface (seat cushion 101; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) sized and shaped to support legs and feet of the boat passenger (See at least: Fig. 3(c) where the passenger shown is changed with that of a passenger who is smaller, a child or an infant, such that the feet on these passengers are supported); and
a seat back (seatback 103; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) having a forward passenger support interface (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where the examiner interprets a first cushion from the image), the seat back comprising:
a main support (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(b) best shows the seatback 103 having a main support surface), and
a supplemental support (headrest 111; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) movable relative to the main support (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(b) which best show linear movement interpreted as up and down) between
a first position (See at least: Fig. 3(b) showing the headrest 111 in a down position) wherein the supplemental support forms a back support (See at least: Fig. 3(b) in combination with fig. 3(c) where the headrest 111 is in a position that forms a larger area for seatback 103 to support the passenger shown in fig. 3(c)’s back.) and
a second position (See at least: Fig. 3(a) showing the headrest 111 in a up position) wherein the supplemental support forms a head support (See at least: Fig. 3(a) showing the headrest 111 in a up position in combination with the passenger of fig. 3(c), where the up position would provide additional support at the head of the passenger.).
Regarding claim 17, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Additionally, Park discloses wherein the main support comprises a center portion (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) best shows a center portion), and laterally opposed support members (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where figs. 3(a)-(b) best show support members on opposite sides of groove 110.), the center portion extending between the laterally opposed support members, and a recess (groove 110; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c)) being formed between the laterally opposed support members.
Regarding claim 18, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 17 as noted above. Additionally, Park discloses wherein the main support defines a top edge (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where seatback 103 has a top edge) and a bottom edge (unlabeled; See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) has a dashed line that best represents a bottom edge of seatback 103), and wherein the recess extends at least partially between the top edge and the bottom edge of the main support (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(c) where fig. 3(a) best shows the groove 110 and top/bottom edge of the main support).
Regarding claim 20, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Additionally, Park discloses wherein the supplemental support is translatable (See at least: Figs. 3(a)-(b) which best shows that the headrest 111 moves linearly up and down without changing its orientation around the axis of the linear movement.) between the first position and the second position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park {박상욱} (KR 20170001242 U) in view of Donat et al. (US 20210298483 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Park discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. However, Park does not disclose wherein the supplemental support comprises at least one of a strap, a grip, or a handle (driving motor 112, ball screw 113; See at least: Figs. 4(a)-(b) where Park automates a manual activity of moving up and down the headrest 111.).
Donat et al. in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the supplemental support ( seat back 32; See at least fig. 5) comprises at least one of a strap, a grip, or a handle (strap {unlabeled}; See at least fig. 5-6; where the strap is shown unlabeled, where it is interpetred from the figures that the unlabeled strap is used to assist a user to move the seat back 32 using manual means.).
MPEP § 2144.III. Automating A Manual Activity recites “In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)… The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.” Therefore, the reverse of changing an automatic or mechanical means to a manual activity would be logical.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the automated parts of headrest 111 of Park into a manual version with strap of Donat et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of providing a strap a user may hold and manually slide the headrest into different positions (See at least: Donat et al. figs. 6-7 showing the movement of seatback 32 with unlabeled strap).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 13-14 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 19, in combination with the other structures required by the base claim and intervening claims, the prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed configuration' s element “…wherein the supplemental support is rotatable between the first position and the second position, with respect to the main support.” The closest prior art of Park {박상욱} (KR 20170001242 U) does not disclose a rotatable or pivot movement. Langevin et al. (US 20190061883 A1) {Provided on applicants IDS under US 10569840 B2} teaches a seatback with a hinge assembly, however it is used as cover to access a storage compartment behind and therefore is not combinable with the seat disclosed by Park.
Dependent claims 6-7, and 14 would be allowable for the same reason for their associated claims 5 and 13 above.
Additional Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be found in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Brown et al. (US 5497724 A) teaches aft seating and in fig. 1 shows a back-to-back seat 60 {not labeled in fig. 1} which one side of the seat faces forward and the other side of the seat faces aft. This prior art is relevant to at least claims 1, 10 and 16.
Langevin et al. (US 20190061883 A1) see allowable subject matter above for discussion. This prior art is relevant to at least claims 5, 13 and 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC ANTHONY STARCK whose telephone number is (571)272-6651. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm Eastern Standard Time (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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/ERIC ANTHONY STARCK/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615