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's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that Tolleneer does not teach of the amendments to the independent claim, the Examiner disagrees. While the Examiner does acknowledge that the groove of Tolleneer does not match the orientation of the groove of the instant application as shown in Figs. 3-4, the Examiner does not believe that the amendments to the independent claims sufficiently describe the orientation of groove to match what is shown in the figures. The amendments states that the groove extends between the two side and between the holes but does not specify the orientation of the groove or the direction in which it extends. The grooves 28 of Tolleneer extend between the holes 22 and the long sides of 17.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s assertion that grooves of Tolleneer would be capable of performing the thermal expansion functions outlined in the independent claims, the Examiner disagrees. While the Examiner does acknowledge that Tolleneer does not state that the groves are for accommodating thermal expansion of 17, the grooves of Tolleneer contain all of the structural elements outlined in the independent claims and are capable of accommodating an increase in size of 17 due to thermal expansion. The Examiner does not claim inherency as stated in the arguments and is merely stating that the structure of Tolleneer is capable of the claimed function.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 3 and 11, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant asserts that the MPEP rationale applied to change the shape of the groove of Tolleneer is not proper since the groove of Tolleneer is not the same element as the claimed element. However, as established above, the groove of Tolleneer has the same structural elements as claimed in the independent claims and therefore is the same element as it pertains to the limitations of the claims. Applicant does not place criticality on the shape of the groove and therefore it would be obvious to modify the groove of Tolleneer to match the shape of claims 3 and 11. Further, there is no indication that the shape of the groove in Tolleneer is critical and changing the shape of the groove would not impair its intended function within the system of Tolleneer.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 4 and 12, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner does acknowledge that adding the annular lip to the side of 17 with grooves 28 would not be possible, the Examiner does not make such a combination. In the Non-Final Rejection the Examiner clearly outlines that the annular lip is to be positioned on the side of 17 facing heat exchanger tube openings 6 and extending slightly into the heat exchanger tube openings which is what is shown in Fig. 3 of Specht. Adding the annular lip to the side of 17 facing 6 would not impact the existing structural features of 17.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 16-18, the Examiner disagrees. For similar rationale to the arguments regarding claim 1, the Examiner asserts that the combined teachings of Tolleneer in view of Kowald and Schultz teach of the limitations of the method of claim 16. The system of Tolleneer performs the active method step of the groove compressing to accommodate thermal expansion. First, the heat shielding plate 17 has no other features to accommodate thermal expansion and as such the groove formed in the plate would provide a space for which the expanding material of 17 could expand into. Further, the method step regarding the groove does not specify that they should be oriented perpendicular to the primary direction of thermal expansion and only state that they extend between the two long sides and between the holes, which the grooves of Tolleneer achieve.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolleneer (US 20120240917 A1) in view of Kowald (US 20170241666 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tolleneer teaches of:
A furnace assembly for use with a combustible fuel from a fuel supply (Fig. 3), comprising:
an intake manifold (Fig. 3, 20) connectable to the fuel supply in which the fuel is mixable with air to form a pre-mixed fuel and air mixture (A fuel supply is connected to 20 to supply premixed fuel 30; ¶ [0057], “A premixed fuel-air mixture 30 is introduced in the premix burner 16 via the supply 20”);
a partition panel (Fig. 4, 7);
a burner assembly mountable to the partition panel and operable to combust the pre-mixed fuel and air mixture to produce a heated flue gas (Fig. 4, 16), the burner assembly comprising:
a housing connected in fluid communication with the intake manifold (Fig. 4, 18);
burners locatable in the housing (Fig. 4 21), each burner configured to produce a flame for the combustion of the mixture into a flue gas (¶ [0045], “In the example shown, the inputs 6 and the outputs 21 have a, elongated shape and define the flame zones of the burner, so to speak”); and
a heat shielding plate located and shaped to reduce heat communicated to the partition panel due to the combustion (Fig. 4, 17) and comprising:
holes through the plate, each hole aligned with one of the burners (Fig. 4, holes 22 align with 21 of burner);
a rectangular profile comprising two short sides and two long sides (Fig. 4, see the rectangular shape of 17 with two long sides and two short sides);
and a groove extending between the two long sides (Fig. 4, 24, 25 and 28 are positioned between the two long sides and extend between them in their width direction) and between the holes (24, 25 and 28 extend between 22) and shaped to accommodate thermal expansion of and reduce thermal deformation of the plate (Fig. 4, 24, 25 and 28 would be capable of accommodating thermal expansion and deformation of 17); and
a heat exchanger mounted to the partition panel in thermal communication with the burners and comprising tubes positioned to receive the heated flue gas from the burners (Figs. 4-5, 4 are tube shaped, mounted to 7 and in thermal communication with the burners).
Tolleneer fails to explicitly teach:
the heat shielding plate comprising a high-temperature alloy
Kowald teaches of:
the heat shielding plate comprising a high-temperature alloy (¶ [0026], “Embodiments of a flue shield as described herein can comprise a variety of materials. In a preferred embodiment a flue shield is made of stainless steel. Different stainless steels can be used such as 400 series, 300 series or other alloys of chromium, nickel and other metals as appropriate. Some embodiments may be able to use ceramics. A typical embodiment of a flue shield may have to withstand temperatures up to 1300 F”)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
make the heat shield of Tolleneer out of an alloy that can withstand temperature up to 1300 F
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It has been found that the simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious based upon the following rationale:
Tolleneer teaches of the claimed heat shield except for the substitution of the particular material it is made out of;
Kowald teaches of the heat shield made out of a heat resistant alloy;
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have substituted the material of the heat shield of Tolleneer with the alloy of Kowald and the results would predictably have been heat shielding of the partition panel and heat exchanger tube connections
Applicant has placed no criticality on the use of a high-temperature alloy in the heat shield, simply stating that the heat shield “may” be made from such an alloy (see Applicant’s specification paragraph [0029])
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach of the assembly of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the groove comprises a v-shape cross-section profile.
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the grooves of Tolleneer to be v-shaped
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it has been found that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a particular shape of an element, Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed shaped and modification to the shape in the prior art would not adversely affect its functionality, than such a change would be obvious to one of ordinary skill (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). In the instant case Applicant has placed no criticality on the v-shape of the groove, simply stating that the groove “may” be v-shaped but any other shape is suitable (see Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0031]) and modification to Tolleneer would not impact the heat shields functionality.
Regarding claim 9, Tolleneer teaches of:
A burner assembly (Fig. 4, 16) mountable to a partition panel of a furnace assembly (Fig. 4, 16 is mountable to 7) and operable to combust a pre-mixed combustible fuel and air mixture to produce a heated flue gas (Fig. 4, 16 is mountable to 7 and combusts premixed air and fuel), the burner assembly comprising:
a housing (Fig. 4, 18);
at least two burners, each configured to produce a flame for the combustion of the mixture into a flue gas (Fig. 4, 21; ¶ [0045], “In the example shown, the inputs 6 and the outputs 21 have a, elongated shape and define the flame zones of the burner, so to speak”)); and
a heat shielding plate (Fig. 4, 17) located between the burners and the partition panel and configured to reduce the heat communicated to the partition panel due to the combustion (Fig. 4, 17 is located between 21 and 7), and comprising:
holes through the plate, each hole aligned with one of the burners (Fig. 4, holes 22 align with 21 of burner); and
a rectangular profile comprising two short sides and two long sides (Fig. 4, see the rectangular shape of 17 with two long sides and two short sides);
a groove extending between the two long sides (Fig. 4, 24, 25 and 28 are positioned between the two long sides and extend between them in their width direction) and between the holes (24, 25 and 28 extend between 22) and shaped to accommodate thermal expansion of and reduce thermal deformation of the plate (Fig. 4, 24, 25 and 28 would be capable of accommodating thermal expansion and deformation of 17).
Tolleneer fails to explicitly teach:
the heat shielding plate comprising a high-temperature alloy
Kowald teaches of:
the heat shielding plate comprising a high-temperature alloy (¶ [0026], “Embodiments of a flue shield as described herein can comprise a variety of materials. In a preferred embodiment a flue shield is made of stainless steel. Different stainless steels can be used such as 400 series, 300 series or other alloys of chromium, nickel and other metals as appropriate. Some embodiments may be able to use ceramics. A typical embodiment of a flue shield may have to withstand temperatures up to 1300 F”)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
make the heat shield of Tolleneer out of an alloy that can withstand temperature up to 1300 F
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It has been found that the simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious based upon the following rationale:
Tolleneer teaches of the claimed heat shield except for the substitution of the particular material it is made out of;
Kowald teaches of the heat shield made out of a heat resistant alloy;
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have substituted the material of the heat shield of Tolleneer with the alloy of Kowald and the results would predictably have been heat shielding of the partition panel and heat exchanger tube connections
Applicant has placed no criticality on the use of a high-temperature alloy in the heat shield, simply stating that the heat shield “may” be made from such an alloy (see Applicant’s specification paragraph [0029])
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach of the burner assembly of claim 9, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the groove comprises a v-shape cross-section profile.
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the grooves of Tolleneer to be v-shaped
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it has been found that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a particular shape of an element, Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed shaped and modification to the shape in the prior art would not adversely affect its functionality, than such a change would be obvious to one of ordinary skill (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). In the instant case Applicant has placed no criticality on the v-shape of the groove, simply stating that the groove “may” be v-shaped but any other shape is suitable (see Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0031]) and modification to Tolleneer would not impact the heat shields functionality.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolleneer (US 20120240917 A1) in view of Kowald (US 20170241666 A1) as presented in claims 1 and 9, and in further view of Specht (US 7726386 B2).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach of the assembly of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
where the holes each comprise a lip comprising a curved funnel cross-section profile.
Specht teaches of:
where the holes each comprise a lip comprising a curved funnel cross-section profile (Fig. 3, heat shield 120 has a curved funnel cross-section 124)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add an annular lip to the holes of the heat shield 17 of Tolleneer so that they extend slighting into the openings 6 of the heat exchanger
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would create laminar flow of the combustion gases allowing them to stay more central within the heat exchangers and flow further into the heat exchanger before dispersing, improving efficiency (Col. 4, lines 54-56, “By reducing entrance turbulence of the secondary combustion air, it has been found that significant reductions of carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide compounds result.”)
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach of the burner assembly of claim 9, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
where the holes each comprise a lip comprising a curved funnel cross-section profile.
Specht teaches of:
where the holes each comprise a lip comprising a curved funnel cross-section profile (Fig. 3, heat shield 120 has a curved funnel cross-section 124)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add an annular lip to the holes of the heat shield 17 of Tolleneer so that they extend slighting into the openings 6 of the heat exchanger
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would create laminar flow of the combustion gases allowing them to stay more central within the heat exchangers and flow further into the heat exchanger before dispersing, improving efficiency (Col. 4, lines 54-56, “By reducing entrance turbulence of the secondary combustion air, it has been found that significant reductions of carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide compounds result.”)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolleneer (US 20120240917 A1) in view of Kowald (US 20170241666 A1) as presented in claim 1, and in further view of Schultz (US 20040250810 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach of the assembly of claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
further comprising an inducer blower downstream of the heat exchanger and in fluid communication with the tubes, the blower operable to create a negative pressure in the heat exchanger and pull the combusted flue gas into the tubes.
Schultz teaches of:
further comprising an inducer blower downstream of the heat exchanger and in fluid communication with the tubes, the blower operable to create a negative pressure in the heat exchanger and pull the combusted flue gas into the tubes (Fig. 1, 116 pulls gasses through 114)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add an inducer at the downstream end of the heat exchangers 5 of Tolleneer
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would ensure that there is flow through the heat exchanger and that the used combustion gasses are exhausted out of the system (Schultz, ¶ [0002], “A combustion air blower, or inducer, is used to remove exhaust gases from the building.”)
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolleneer (US 20120240917 A1) in view of Kowald (US 20170241666 A1) and Schultz (US 20040250810 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Tolleneer teaches of:
A method of operating a furnace assembly for use with a combustible fuel from a fuel supply to heat an interior of a structure, comprising:
supplying fuel from a fuel supply to an intake manifold (Fig. 3, 20; A fuel supply is connected to 20 to supply premixed fuel 30; ¶ [0057], “A premixed fuel-air mixture 30 is introduced in the premix burner 16 via the supply 20”);
supplying air to the intake manifold to form a pre-mixed fuel and air mixture (¶ [0017], “whereby the burner has a premix chamber in which fuel and sufficient air for the essentially complete combustion of the fuel is mixed”);
flowing the pre-mixed fuel and air mixture to a burner assembly (Fig. 4, pre-mixed fuel 30 is supplied via 20 to 16);
combusting the pre-mixed fuel and air mixture on burners of the burner assembly to produce a heated flue gas (Fig. 4, mixture 30 is combusted on burners 21);
reducing an amount of heat from the combustion communicated to a partition panel to which the burner assembly is mounted with a heat shielding plate (Fig. 4, 17; ¶ [0061], “As a result of the thickness of the heat shield 17, the passages 22 form, so to speak, guides that more or less channel the heat radiation 32 from the flame zones of the burner 16 in the flow direction of the primary channels, such that this heat radiation 32, as shown in FIG. 5, only contacts the walls of the primary channels 5 at a shallow angle, so that this radiation 32 only has a limited effect on the heating of these walls”), each hole aligned with one of the burners (Fig. 4, holes 22 align with 21 of burner), and a rectangular profile comprising two short sides and two long sides (Fig. 4, see the rectangular shape of 17 with two long sides and two short sides);
compressing a groove in the heat shielding plate extending between the two long side (Fig. 4, 24, 25 and 28 are positioned between the two long sides and extend between them in their width direction) and between the holes during the repeated combustion cycles to accommodate thermal expansion of and reduce thermal deformation of the plate (Fig. 4, grooves 24, 25 and 28 would allow for thermal expansion and deformation of 17 and the system of Tolleneer is not for a single use and would endure repeated cycles);
passing an air stream over an exterior of the tubes to transfer heat from the heated flue gas in the tubes to the air stream to produce a heated air stream (Fig. 3, 9 passes an air stream over heat exchangers 5); and
flowing the heated air stream into the interior of the structure (¶ [0001], “The present invention relates to a heating appliance for air heating, more specifically for heating air that is used for heating the spaces of buildings or similar”)
Tolleneer fails to explicitly teach:
the heat shielding plate comprising a high-temperature alloy and comprising holes through the plate
operating a blower downstream of the burner assembly to create a negative pressure in a heat exchanger mounted to the partition panel in thermal communication with the burner and comprising tubes and pull the heated flue gas into the tubes
Kowald teaches of:
the heat shielding plate comprising a high-temperature alloy (¶ [0026], “Embodiments of a flue shield as described herein can comprise a variety of materials. In a preferred embodiment a flue shield is made of stainless steel. Different stainless steels can be used such as 400 series, 300 series or other alloys of chromium, nickel and other metals as appropriate. Some embodiments may be able to use ceramics. A typical embodiment of a flue shield may have to withstand temperatures up to 1300 F”)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
make the heat shield of Tolleneer out of an alloy that can withstand temperature up to 1300 F
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It has been found that the simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious based upon the following rationale:
Tolleneer teaches of the claimed heat shield except for the substitution of the particular material it is made out of;
Kowald teaches of the heat shield made out of a heat resistant alloy;
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have substituted the material of the heat shield of Tolleneer with the alloy of Kowald and the results would predictably have been heat shielding of the partition panel and heat exchanger tube connections
Applicant has placed no criticality on the use of a high-temperature alloy in the heat shield, simply stating that the heat shield “may” be made from such an alloy (see Applicant’s specification paragraph [0029])
Schultz teaches of:
operating a blower downstream of the burner assembly to create a negative pressure in a heat exchanger mounted to the partition panel in thermal communication with the burner and comprising tubes and pull the heated flue gas into the tubes (Fig. 1, 116 pulls gasses through 114)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add an inducer at the downstream end of the heat exchangers 5 of Tolleneer
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would ensure that there is flow through the heat exchanger and that the used combustion gasses are exhausted out of the system (Schultz, ¶ [0002], “A combustion air blower, or inducer, is used to remove exhaust gases from the building.”)
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach of the method of claim 17, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the groove comprises a v-shape cross- section profile.
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the grooves of Tolleneer to be v-shaped
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it has been found that when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is a particular shape of an element, Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed shaped and modification to the shape in the prior art would not adversely affect its functionality, than such a change would be obvious to one of ordinary skill (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.B). In the instant case Applicant has placed no criticality on the v-shape of the groove, simply stating that the groove “may” be v-shaped but any other shape is suitable (see Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0031]) and modification to Tolleneer would not impact the heat shields functionality.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tolleneer (US 20120240917 A1) in view of Kowald (US 20170241666 A1) and Schultz (US 20040250810 A1) as presented in claim 16, and in further view of Specht (US 7726386 B2).
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach of the method of claim 16, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
where the holes each comprise a lip comprising a curved funnel cross-section profile.
Specht teaches of:
where the holes each comprise a lip comprising a curved funnel cross-section profile (Fig. 3, heat shield 120 has a curved funnel cross-section 124)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
add an annular lip to the holes of the heat shield 17 of Tolleneer so that they extend slighting into the openings 6 of the heat exchanger
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would create laminar flow of the combustion gases allowing them to stay more central within the heat exchangers and flow further into the heat exchanger before dispersing, improving efficiency (Col. 4, lines 54-56, “By reducing entrance turbulence of the secondary combustion air, it has been found that significant reductions of carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide compounds result.”)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 13-15 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 5-7, 13-15 and 20:
Each of the claims recite flanges on the short sides or tabs on the long sides of the rectangular profile of the heat shield. None of the known references with heat shields teach of such an arrangement. Particularly, Tolleneer is the only known reference to teach of a heat shield with any groove and is therefore the only known primary reference for each of the independent claims. Shown in Fig. 5 of Tolleneer, the heat shield 17 is fit between on the surface of 18 and the partition panel 7 with no space left between. No known reference teaches of adding a flange or tab to 17, particularly ones that are arranged to accommodate for thermal expansion of 7. Therefore claims 5-7, 13-15 and 20 are objected to as containing allowable subject matter but depending from rejected claims.
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 MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
