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 .
The amendment to the claims overcame the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, made in the previous Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, 18 and are 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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5, 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, applicant's arguments stated that Forbes fails teaching “at least one server constructed and configured for communicating Internet Protocol (IP)-based messages with at least one smart meter and at least one active load client”. Examiner respectfully disagree. In [0052], Forbes recites: “The ALD 100 may communicate with the utility control center 200 and each active load client 300 either directly or through a network 80 using the Internet Protocol (IP) or any other (IP or Ethernet) connection-based protocols.” This teaches the server communicates IP based messages with an active load client. In [0091], Forbes recites: “(the smart meter interface) … provides the formatted message to the IP based communication converter for transmission to the ALD”). This teaches the server communicates IP based messages with at least one smart meter. Using a IP based communication converter shows the communication between the ALD and the meter using IP based messages. The claim language didn’t specify the communication between ALD and the meter is point to point without any other point in between, nor an IP based communication converter not being used.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, applicant's arguments stated that Forbes fails teaching “a database for storing information including data from the at least one smart meter corresponding to power supplied by at least one grid element”. Examiner respectfully disagree. In [0074], Forbes teaches the information received from the ALC is logged in the ALD database; this information is a replication to “Read Meters” message, thus the data from meters are logged in the ALD database; In [0017], [0018] Forbes teaches when a customer’s generator producing more power than being consumed, most states allow the meter to run backward, generating credits. This is net metering service. Net metering service is made practical by using smart meters. Therefore the smart meter measures the power supplies to the grid. Thus this data is stored in ALD database as other meter data.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, applicant's arguments stated that Forbes fails teaching “wherein the at least one server and/or the at least one smart meter provides measurement and verification for the at least one grid element based on the data from the at least one smart meter regarding the power supplied by the at least one grid element”. Examiner respectfully disagree. In [0017] and [0018], Forbes teaches: when a customer’s generator producing more power than being consumed, most states allow the meter to run backward, generating credits; net metering is made practical by using smart meters; thus smart meter provides measurement and verification regarding power supplied to the grid; In [0057], Forbes teaches: In accordance with net metering regulations, the utility may provide credit to the service point owner for any energy produced at the service point and supplied to the utility’s power grid. In [0151], Forbes teaches: the determination of renewable energy credits in accordance with the present invention is also “measurable, reportable, and verifiable”. Therefore, Forbes teaches: “wherein the at least one server and/or the at least one smart meter provides measurement and verification for the at least one grid element based on the data from the at least one smart meter regarding the power supplied by the at least one grid element”.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, applicant's arguments stated that there is no motivation to combine Forbes and Uselton. Examiner respectfully disagree. In [0048], Forbes recites: “A quantity of carbon credits and/or renewable energy credits is then determined based on the amount of power saved and its estimated generation mix. The quantity of credits may be adjusted to account for the return or supply of power to the utility's power grid through net metering and/or from energy storage devices (e.g., batteries in hybrid or fully electric vehicles) connected to the grid.” This net metering value is a metrology data. In [0003] and [0028], Uselton teaches revenue grade metering. Forbes and Uselton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management. They all relates to capture the amount of energy provided to the grid. Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system, as taught by Forbes, and incorporating revenue grade meter, as taught by Uselton. For example, using a revenue grade meter to perform the net metering thus generate revenue grade data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve metering accuracy, as suggested by Uselton ([0003]).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 19, applicant's arguments stated that Forbes fails teaching “the at least one server is operable to generate consumer profiles for the at least one grid element and/or for one or more groupings of the at least one grid element, and wherein the consumer profiles include at least one location of the at least one grid element and/or remaining supply capacity for the at least one grid element”. Examiner respectfully disagree. In [0093], Forbes teaches ALC supplements the received data with geodetic location data (e.g. GPS coordinates, physical address, zip code & etc.), these data is collected for the service point and communicated to the ALD, thus ALD stores consumer location data, that maps to consumer profiles; In [0145], Forbes teaches the ALD databased stores IDs for all control devices and storage devices associated with each service point, those data is interpreted as profile for the service point.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 16 applicant's arguments stated that Katagi fails teaching “wherein the one or more power trade blocks (PTBs) are units of approximately 100 kW of power supplied”. Examiner respectfully disagree. In [00387], Katagi teaches minimum amount of power that can be traded is 500kwh. “500kwh” is approximately 100kW. “minimum amount of power that can be traded” is interpreted as units.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, JR. et al. U.S. Pub. No 2010/0235008 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Uselton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090935 (hereinafter Uselton).
Regarding claim 1, Forbes teaches: a system for managing power information for generating operating reserves on an electric power grid, comprising:
at least one server constructed and configured for communicating Internet Protocol (IP)-based messages with at least one smart meter and at least one active load client (Fig. 2, [0052] - - the ALD is a server; ALD communicates over a network using IP-based messages with active load client; [0140] - - ALD controlling the power storage device; Fig. 4, [0091] - - smart meter receives/replies messages from ALD using an IP based communication converter); and
a database for storing information including data from the at least one smart meter corresponding to power supplied by at least one grid element (Fig. 2, [0060] - - ALD database 124 and utility power and carbon database 134 are databases; [0023] power consumption data is stored in database; power consumption data represents power supplied by a grid element; [0091] - - smart meter communicates to ALD; [0074] - - the information received by the ALC is logged in the ALD database; this information is replay to “Read Meters” message, thus the data from meters are logged in the ALD database; [0017], [0018] - - when a customer’s generator producing more power than being consumed, most states allow the meter to run backward, generating credits; net metering is made practical by using smart meters; thus the smart meter measures the power supplies to the grid; thus this data is stored in ALD database as other meter data);
wherein the at least one active load client receives control messages from the at least one server and control a power flow to the at least one grid element based on the control messages (Fig. 1, [0054] - - ALC controls smart appliances,);
wherein the at least one active load client transmits messages to the at least one server including location data for the at least one grid element ([0093] - - the active load client supplements received data with geodetic location data and communicates to the ALD);
wherein the at least one grid element includes at least one energy storage device and/or at least one electric vehicle (Fig. 1, [0058] - - power storage device which can be an electric vehicle);
wherein the at least one server and/or the at least one smart meter provides measurement and verification for the at least one grid element based on the data from the at least one smart meter regarding the power supplied by the at least one grid element ([0017], [0018] - - when a customer’s generator producing more power than being consumed, most states allow the meter to run backward, generating credits; net metering is made practical by using smart meters; thus smart meter provides measurement and verification regarding power supplied to the grid; [0057] - - In accordance with net metering regulations, the utility may provide credit to the service point owner for any energy produced at the service point and supplied to the utility’s power grid; [0151] - - the determination of renewable energy credits in accordance with the present invention is also “measurable, reportable, and verifiable); and
wherein the at least one server generates metrology data based on the measurement and verification for the at least one grid element ([0130] - - energy consumption data is accurately measured by each ALC and sent to ALD periodically; the energy consumption data is metrology data; the measurement data supplied by ALC is verified by the utility or a third party; OR [0048] - - the quantity of credits is adjusted to account for the return or supply of power to the grid through net metering or from energy storage devices connected to the grid; the value of net metering is a metrology data).
But Forbes does not explicitly teach: generating revenue grade metrology data.
However, Uselton teaches:
generating revenue grade metrology data ([0003] - - revenue grade meter; [0028] - - revenue grade metering; [0032] - - the revenue grade metrology is included in a database).
Forbes and Uselton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Forbes, and incorporating revenue grade meter, as taught by Uselton. E.g. performs net metering using the revenue grade meter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve metering accuracy, as suggested by Uselton ([0003]).
Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Forbes and Uselton teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Forbes further teaches: the at least one server is operable to generate consumer profiles for the at least one grid element and/or for one or more groupings of the at least one grid element, and wherein the consumer profiles include at least one location of the at least one grid element and/or remaining supply capacity for the at least one grid element ([0093] - - ALC supplements the received data with geodetic location data (e.g. GPS coordinates, physical address, zip code & etc.), these data is collected for the service point and communicated to the ALD, thus ALD stores consumer location data, that maps to consumer profiles; [0145] - - the ALD databased stores IDs for all control devices and storage devices associated with each service point, those data is interpreted as profile for the service point).
Claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 2, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, JR. et al. U.S. Pub. No 2010/0235008 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Uselton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090935 (hereinafter Uselton) and further in view of Ozog U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0231028 (hereinafter Ozog).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Forbes and Uselton teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Forbes and Uselton does not explicitly teach: the location data includes at least one Locational Marginal Price (LMP) location for the at least one grid element.
However, Ozog teaches: the location data includes at least one Locational Marginal Price (LMP) location for the at least one grid element ([0009] - - locational marginal price).
Forbes, Uselton and Ozog are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Forbes and Uselton, and incorporating LMP, as taught by Ozog.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to optimize energy use and distribution, as suggested by Ozog ([0002]).
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 3, 10, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, JR. et al. U.S. Pub. No 2010/0235008 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Uselton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090935 (hereinafter Uselton) and further in view of IPPOLITO et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0326726 (hereinafter IPPOLITO).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Forbes and Uselton teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Forbes and Uselton does not explicitly teach: the at least one server aggregates the power supplied by the at least one grid element into one or more power trade blocks (PTBs).
However, IPPOLITO teaches: the at least one server aggregates the power supplied by the at least one grid element into one or more power trade blocks (PTBs). ([0011], [0012] - - “the distributed demand response programs are aggregated into larger blocks of energy products that a wholesale power company may choose to utilize, trade, and leverage in the market.”)
Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Forbes and Uselton, and incorporating aggregating data to reach a size of power trade block, as taught by IPPOLITO.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maximize overall system performance, as suggested by IPPOLITO ([0011]).
Claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 15, Forbes teaches: a system for managing power information for generating operating reserves on an electric power grid, comprising:
at least one server constructed and configured for communicating Internet Protocol (IP)-based messages with at least one smart meter and at least one active load client (Fig. 2, [0052] - - the ALD is a server; ALD communicates over a network using IP-based messages with active load client; [0140] - - ALD controlling the power storage device; Fig. 4, [0091] - - smart meter receives/replies messages from ALD using an IP based communication converter); and
a database for storing information including data from the at least one smart meter corresponding to power supplied by at least one grid element (Fig. 2, [0060] - - ALD database 124 and utility power and carbon database 134 are databases; [0023] power consumption data is stored in database; power consumption data represents power supplied by a grid element; [0091] - - smart meter communicates to ALD; [0074] - - the information received by the ALC is logged in the ALD database; this information is replay to “Read Meters” message, thus the data from meters are logged in the ALD database; [0017], [0018] - - when a customer’s generator producing more power than being consumed, most states allow the meter to run backward, generating credits; net metering is made practical by using smart meters; thus the smart meter measures the power supplies to the grid; thus this data is stored in ALD database as other meter data);
wherein the at least one active load client receives control messages from the at least one server and control a power flow to the at least one grid element based on the control messages (Fig. 1, [0054] - - ALC controls smart appliances);
wherein the at least one active load client transmits messages to the at least one server ([0064] - - confirmation);
wherein the at least one grid element includes at least one energy storage device and/or at least one electric vehicle (Fig. 1, [0058] - - power storage device which can be an electric vehicle);
wherein the at least one server and/or the at least one smart meter provides measurement and verification for the at least one grid element based on the data from the at least one smart meter regarding the power supplied by the at least one grid element ([0017], [0018] - - when a customer’s generator producing more power than being consumed, most states allow the meter to run backward, generating credits; net metering is made practical by using smart meters; thus smart meter provides measurement and verification regarding power supplied to the grid; [0057] - - In accordance with net metering regulations, the utility may provide credit to the service point owner for any energy produced at the service point and supplied to the utility’s power grid; [0151] - - the determination of renewable energy credits in accordance with the present invention is also “measurable, reportable, and verifiable);
wherein the at least one server generates metrology data based on the measurement and verification for the at least one grid element ([0130] - - energy consumption data is accurately measured by each ALC and sent to ALD periodically; the energy consumption data is metrology data; the measurement data supplied by ALC is verified by the utility or a third party; OR [0048] - - the quantity of credits is adjusted to account for the return or supply of power to the grid through net metering or from energy storage devices connected to the grid; the value of net metering is a metrology data);
But Forbes does not explicitly teach: generating revenue grade metrology data.
However, Uselton teaches:
generating revenue grade metrology data ([0003] - - revenue grade meter; [0028] - - revenue grade metering; [0032] - - the revenue grade metrology is included in a database).
Forbes and Uselton are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by Forbes, and incorporating revenue grade meter, as taught by Uselton. E.g. performs net metering using the revenue grade meter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve metering accuracy, as suggested by Uselton ([0003]).
But the combination of Forbes and Uselton does not explicitly teach: the at least one server aggregates the power supplied by the at least one grid element into one or more power trade blocks (PTBs).
However, IPPOLITO teaches: the at least one server aggregates the power supplied by the at least one grid element into one or more power trade blocks (PTBs). ([0011], [0012] - - “the distributed demand response programs are aggregated into larger blocks of energy products that a wholesale power company may choose to utilize, trade, and leverage in the market.”)
Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Forbes and Uselton, and incorporating aggregating data to reach a size of power trade block, as taught by IPPOLITO.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to maximize overall system performance, as suggested by IPPOLITO ([0011]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Forbes further teaches: the at least one server is operable to generate consumer profiles for the at least one grid element and/or for one or more groupings of the at least one grid element, and wherein the consumer profiles include at least one location of the at least one grid element and/or remaining supply capacity for the at least one grid element ([0093] - - ALC supplements the received data with geodetic location data (e.g. GPS coordinates, physical address, zip code & etc.), these data is collected for the service point and communicated to the ALD, thus ALD stores consumer location data, that maps to consumer profiles; [0145] - - the ALD databased stores IDs for all control devices and storage devices associated with each service point, those data is interpreted as profile for the service point).
Claims 4, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, JR. et al. U.S. Pub. No 2010/0235008 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Uselton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090935 (hereinafter Uselton) and IPPOLITO et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0326726 (hereinafter IPPOLITO) and further in view of Katagi et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0310428 (hereinafter Katagi) .
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO does not explicitly teach: the one or more power trade blocks (PTBs) are units of approximately 100 kW of power supplied.
However, Katagi teaches: the one or more power trade blocks (PTBs) are units of approximately 100 kW of power supplied ([0387] - - minimum amount of power that can be traded is 500kwh)
Forbes, Uselton, IPPOLITO and Katagi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO, and incorporating aggregating data to reach a size of 500kwh, as taught by Katagi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to perform bulk trading, as suggested by Katagi ([0387]).
Claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 5, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, JR. et al. U.S. Pub. No 2010/0235008 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Uselton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090935 (hereinafter Uselton) and further in view of Ellis U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0046413 (hereinafter Ellis) .
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
the combination of Forbes and Uselton already teaches: revenue grade metrology data (Uselton, [0003] - - revenue grade meter; [0028] - - revenue grade metering; [0032] - - the revenue grade metrology is included in a database);
But the combination of Forbes and Uselton does not explicitly teach: metrology data is generated in real time.
However, Ellis teaches: metrology data is generated in real time ([0070] - - detecting real time amount of power being produced by the given power production unit by accessing a meter)
Forbes, Uselton and Ellis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Forbes and Uselton, and incorporating generating metrology data in real time, as taught by Ellis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide incentive to distributed power production, as suggested by Ellis ([0008]).
Claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forbes, JR. et al. U.S. Pub. No 2010/0235008 (hereinafter Forbes) in view of Uselton et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0090935 (hereinafter Uselton) and IPPOLITO et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0326726 (hereinafter IPPOLITO) and further in view of Ellis U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0046413 (hereinafter Ellis).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO already teaches: revenue grade metrology data (Uselton, [0003] - - revenue grade meter; [0028] - - revenue grade metering; [0032] - - the revenue grade metrology is included in a database);
But the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO does not explicitly teach: metrology data is generated in real time.
However, Ellis teaches: metrology data is generated in real time ([0070] - - detecting real time amount of power being produced by the given power production unit by accessing a meter)
Forbes, Uselton, IPPOLITO and Ellis are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to energy management.
Therefore at the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by the combination of Forbes, Uselton and IPPOLITO, and incorporating generating metrology data in real time, as taught by Ellis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide incentive to distributed power production, as suggested by Ellis ([0008]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights