Onboard Aircraft Weight and Balance Detection System
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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s reply filed 01/23/2026 which has amendments to the claims and Applicant's arguments related to the previous rejection. The above have been entered and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant seems to argue Nance's determinations when a plane is retired at the end of the day or when the plane is brought back into service do not represent a first time at an end of a first change in gas pressure and are merely an end of piston movement of specific shocks due to unloading or loading.
The examiner disagrees with applicant's assertion. Nance's struts move and their gas pressure changes as a plane is loaded and unloaded. The time a plane is retired from service for the day represents a first time at the end of a first change in gas pressure from a previous gas pressure condition when the plane was in service, because at a minimum the plane has less fuel when it concludes service for the day as it did when it was in service. Therefore, the plane has a change in fuel payload when it is retired from service. This retired condition, when the plane is out of service and shut down, is additionally considered the end of piston movement of specific shocks, including all shocks, due to loading and unloading that occurred during the previous service. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant further argues Long does not teach the limitation cited above. The examiner believes this argument is moot since Nance discloses the limitation.
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 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, 8-9, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nance (5548517; “Nance”).
Regarding claim 1, Nance discloses, in figures 1-7, an aircraft (1) comprising: a plurality of landing gear (3, 5, 7), wherein each landing gear (3, 5, 7) of the plurality of landing gear includes a shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s); a plurality of sensors (31n, 31p, 31s) associated with each landing gear (3, 5, 7), wherein the plurality of sensors (31n, 31p, 31s) includes a pressure sensor configured to generate pressure data indicative of a gas pressure in the shock strut (col. 4, lines 48-51, “Internal strut… pressure signals from each of the weight supporting landing gears are transmitted by pressure… transducer assemblies”, col 4, lines 33-34, “compressed nitrogen gas 17 inside the strut cylinder”) and a temperature sensor configured to generate temperature data indicative of a gas temperature in the shock strut (col. 4, lines 48-51, “Internal strut temperature… signals from each of the weight supporting landing gears are transmitted by… temperature transducer assemblies”, col 4, lines 33-34, “compressed nitrogen gas 17 inside the strut cylinder”); and a computer system (25), wherein the computer system (25) is configured to: determine, for each shock strut of the plurality of landing gear for a first time corresponding to an end of a first change in the gas pressure due to movement of a piston of the shock strut during loading or unloading of the aircraft (col. 10 lines 48-56, Nance performs weight and center of gravity determinations for an aircraft at least when the plane is retired from service at the end of a day and when the plane is brought back into service at the beginning of the day, the examiner construes the timing to be at the end of piston movement due to unloading or loading), a friction value associated with the shock strut based on the gas pressure at the first time indicated by the pressure data and a gas temperature at the first time indicated by the temperature data (col. 10, line 63- col. 11, line 2, Nance determines drag values for each strut using current pressure and temperature measurements); compute, for a particular time before the loading or the unloading of the aircraft causes a second change in gas pressure of one or more of the shock struts as indicated by the pressure data for the shock struts (see previous comment), a weight of the aircraft ((Wt) col. 11, line 7, Nance calculates the aircraft’s weight) based on the gas pressures of the shock struts at the first times (col. 6, lines 47-51, psi) and the friction values associated with the shock struts (col. 6, lines 47-51, Un, Up, Us) at the first times (col. 11, lines 3-5, Nance compensates for determined drag) and provide, to one or more display devices (29), first output that indicates the weight of the aircraft (col. 11, line 8, “display the weight”).
Regarding claim 4, Nance discloses, in figures 1-7, the computer system (25) is further configured to: compute a center of gravity of a coordinate system (col. 11, line 7, Nance’s microcomputer computes the center of gravity of the aircraft) of the aircraft relative to ordinal axes (see fig. 1, col. 9, lines 32-34, examiner notes Nance’s COG is located as a percentage of the Mean Aerodynamic Chord along the length of the fuselage) for the particular time based on vertical loads applied to each landing gear (col. 6, lines 30-67, col. 9, lines 25-60, examiner notes Nance determines COG as % MAC which uses the weight supported by the nose landing gear and the total weight of the airplane including weight supported by the starboard and port landing gear) and distances of effective ground contact locations (L) of the landing gear (3, 5, 7) normal to the ordinal axes (see previous comment); and provide, to the one or more display devices (29), second output that indicates the center of gravity (col. 11, line 8, “center of gravity”).
Regarding claim 8, Nance discloses, in figures 1-7, the computer system (25) is further configured to use a friction model (col. 7, line 58, examiner notes Nance uses a “Load Stroke Curve” system to model the behavior of strut drag) for each shock strut (col. 7, line 2, “each respective landing gear”) to determine the friction value associated with each shock strut at the first time (col. 7, lines 46-67, examiner notes Nance uses stroke behavior and compression and extension pressures values to determine drag values).
Regarding claim 9, Nance discloses, in figures 1-7, the computer system (25) is further configured to adjust the friction model (col. 7, line 58, examiner notes Nance uses a “Load Stroke Curve” system to model the behavior of strut drag) for a particular shock strut (col. 7, line 2, “each respective landing gear”) based on historic data for the particular shock strut stored by the computer system during each loading operation and unloading operation to compensate for changes in shock strut friction with time (col. 7, lines 59-67, examiner notes Nance requests current compression and extension pressure measurement and produces updated drag value solutions).
Regarding claim 11, Nance discloses, in figures 1-7, a method of determining weight of an aircraft (ABSTRACT, “An onboard system for use in measuring, computing and displaying the gross weight… for aircraft”) having a plurality of landing gear (3, 5, 7), wherein each landing gear (3, 5, 7) includes a shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s), the method comprising: obtaining, at a computer system (25), pressure data (col. 4, lines 48-51, “Internal strut… pressure signals from each of the weight supporting landing gears are transmitted by pressure… transducer assemblies”, col 4, lines 33-34, “compressed nitrogen gas 17 inside the strut cylinder”) and temperature data (col. 4, lines 48-51, “Internal strut temperature… signals from each of the weight supporting landing gears are transmitted by… temperature transducer assemblies”, col 4, lines 33-34, “compressed nitrogen gas 17 inside the strut cylinder”) for gas in respective ones of shock struts (8n, 8p, 8s) of the plurality of landing gear (3, 5, 7) during loading or unloading of the aircraft (1); determining, by the computer system (25) for each shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s) of the plurality of landing gear (3, 5, 7) for a first time corresponding to an end of a first change in gas pressure due to movement of a piston of the shock strut during the loading or the unloading of the aircraft (col. 10 lines 48-56, Nance performs weight and center of gravity determinations for an aircraft at least when the plane is retired from service at the end of a day and when the plane is brought back into service at the beginning of the day, the examiner construes the timing to be at the end of piston movement due to unloading or loading), a friction value associated with the shock strut based on a gas pressure at the first time indicated by the pressure data and a gas temperature at the first time indicated by the temperature data (col. 10, line 63- col. 11, line 2, Nance determines drag values for each strut using current pressure and temperature measurements); and computing, by the computer system (25) for a particular time before the loading or the unloading of the aircraft causes a second change in gas pressure of one or more of the shock struts as indicated by the pressure data for the shock struts (see previous comment), a weight of the aircraft ((Wt) col. 11, line 7, Nance calculates the aircraft’s weight) based on the gas pressures of the shock struts at the first times (col. 6, lines 47-51, psi) and the friction values associated with the shock struts (col. 6, lines 47-51, Un, Up, Us) at the first times (col. 11, lines 3-5, Nance compensates for determined drag).
Regarding claim 12, Nance discloses, in figures 1-7, providing first output indicating the weight of the aircraft (col. 11, line 8, “display the weight”) to one or more display devices (29), wherein the one or more display devices include a first display (29) associated of the aircraft (1).
Regarding claim 13, Nance discloses, in figures 1-7, computing, by the computer system (25) for the particular time (col. 10 lines 48-56, Nance performs weight and center of gravity determinations for an aircraft at least when the plane is retired from service at the end of a day and when the plane is brought back into service at the beginning of the day, the examiner construes the timing to be at the end of piston movement due to unloading or loading), a center of gravity of the aircraft (col. 11, line 7, Nance’s microcomputer computes the center of gravity of the aircraft) relative to ordinal axes (see fig. 1, col. 9, lines 32-34, examiner notes Nance’s COG is located as a percentage of the Mean Aerodynamic Chord along the length of the fuselage) of a coordinate system based on known positions of effective ground contact locations (L) of landing gear (3, 5, 7) of the plurality of landing gear (3, 5, 7) and vertical loads associated with each landing gear at the particular time (col. 6, lines 30-67, col. 9, lines 25-60, examiner notes Nance determines COG as % MAC which uses the weight supported by the nose landing gear and the total weight of the airplane including weight supported by the starboard and port landing gear); and providing second output indicating the center of gravity of the aircraft (col. 11, line 8, “center of gravity”) to the one or more display devices (29).
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nance (5548517; “Nance”), as applied to claim 1, in view of Long (US 8340892; “Long”).
Regarding claim 2, Nance discloses, in figures 1-7, the weight of the aircraft (Wt) at the particular time is a sum of a vertical load associated with each landing gear (col. 6, line 34, Wn + Wp + Ws = Wt) of the plurality of landing gear (3, 5, 7); the vertical load (Wn, Wp, Ws) associated with a particular landing gear (3, 5, 7) is calculated as a vertical component of force (col. 6, lines 47-51, [SA(n, p, s) x(psi +/- D(n, p, s)]) applied to the shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s) of the particular landing gear (3, 5, 7) plus weight of components (col. 6, lines 47-51, Un, Up, Us) of the particular landing gear (3, 5, 7) not supported by the gas pressure in the shock strut of the particular landing gear (col. 6, lines 64-66); the force applied (col. 6, lines 47-51, SA(n, p, s) x(psi +/- D(n, p, s)]) to the shock strut of the particular landing gear (3, 5, 7) is calculated as the gas pressure (col. 6, lines 47-51, psi) in the shock strut of the particular landing gear (3, 5, 7) at the first time multiplied by an effective surface area of the piston (col. 6, lines 47-51, SA(n, p, s)) of the shock strut of the particular landing gear (3, 5, 7) plus the friction value (col. 6, lines 47-51, +/- D(n, p, s)) for the shock strut of the particular landing gear (3, 5, 7) plus a load delta value for the shock strut of the particular landing gear at the particular time (col. 10, lines 48-56, examiner notes Nance’s delta values are zero since measurements are taken when the aircraft has retired for the day and no loading or unloading is taking place).
Nance fails to disclose determining the vertical component of force applied to the strut based on attitude and shock angle.
Long teaches the vertical component of the force applied to the shock strut is determined based on an attitude of the aircraft indicated by attitude data from an attitude sensor (col. 5, line 51-52, “pitch attitude sensor”) and an angle of the shock strut relative to the aircraft (see claim 2, Long resolves the force acting on the strut into a vertically acting component based on aircraft attitude and the angle of the strut relative to the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Long’s scheme to determine vertical load based on aircraft attitude and strut angle into Nance’s scheme of determining the weight of the aircraft to account for non-level runways, taxiways and apron’s where an aircraft might park. Doing so increases accuracy of the determination.
Regarding claim 3, Nance and Long, as combined in claim 2, fail to disclose determining a load delta value from a load sensor.
However, Long further discloses, in figure 3, the plurality of sensors include load sensors (130) configured to generate load sensor data (col. 4, line 64, “load”) associated with vertical loads (col. 4, line 61- col. 5, line 6, Long’s load sensors measure vertical load) applied by the landing gear (103) to the aircraft; and the computer system (134) is further configured to determine, for each shock strut (110) of the plurality of landing gear (103) for the particular time, the load delta value (col. 4, lines 61-62, Long determines the “delta load between the breakout pressure load and the current state”) for the shock strut (110) at the particular time as a load value (see previous comment regarding Long’s delta load) indicated by the load sensor (130) data at the particular time for the shock strut (110) less a first load value indicated by the load sensor (130) data at the first time for the shock strut ((110) Col. 4, line 67 – col. 5, line 1, “The difference between these loads are added to the vertical load calculation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Long’s scheme of determining a delta load value to augment a vertical load value into Nance’s scheme of determining the weight of the aircraft to account loading and unloading that does not overcome breakout pressure. Doing so increases accuracy of the determination.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nance (5548517; “Nance”), as applied to claim 11, in view of Long (US 8340892; “Long”).
Regarding claim 14, Nance discloses, in figures 1-7, determining a vertical load (Wn, Wp, Ws) in a first shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s) for the particular time, wherein said determining the vertical load comprises: determining a load delta value (col. 10, lines 48-56, examiner notes Nance’s delta values are zero since measurements are taken when the aircraft has retired for the day and no loading or unloading is taking place) for the particular time for the first shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s); determining a force applied to the first shock strut (col. 6, lines 47-51, SA(n, p, s) x(psi +/- D(n, p, s)]) by multiplying the gas pressure (col. 6, lines 47-51, psi) of the first shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s) at the first time by an effective surface area of the piston (col. 6, lines 47-51, SA(n, p, s)) of the first shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s) and adding the friction value (col. 6, lines 47-51, +/- D(n, p, s)) at the first time for the first shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s); and adding unsupported weight of components (col. 6, lines 47-51, Un, Up, Us) of landing gear (3, 5, 7) associated with the first shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s) not supported by the gas pressure in the first shock strut (8n, 8p, 8s).
Nance fails to disclose determining the vertical component of force applied to the strut based on attitude and shock angle.
Long teaches determining a vertical component of the force based on an attitude of the aircraft and an angle of the first shock strut relative to the aircraft; adding the load delta value to the vertical component (see claim 2, Long resolves the force acting on the strut into a vertically acting component based on aircraft attitude and the angle of the strut relative to the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Long’s scheme to determine vertical load based on aircraft attitude and strut angle into Nance’s scheme of determining the weight of the aircraft to account for non-level runways, taxiways and apron’s where an aircraft might park. Doing so increases accuracy of the determination.
Regarding claim 15, Nance and Long, as combined in claim 14, fail to disclose determining a load delta value from load sensor data.
However, Long further discloses, in figure 3, determining the load delta value (col. 4, lines 61-62, Long determines the “delta load between the breakout pressure load and the current state”) for the particular time for the first shock strut (110) further comprises: obtaining, at the computer system, load sensor data (col. 4, line 64, “load”) associated with a vertical load (col. 4, line 61- col. 5, line 6, Long’s load sensors measure vertical load) applied by a first landing gear (103) associated with the first shock strut (110) to the aircraft from one or more load sensors (130) associated with the first landing gear (103); and determining, by the computer system the load delta value (col. 4, lines 61-62, Long determines the “delta load between the breakout pressure load and the current state”) for the first shock strut (110) at the particular time as a load value (see previous comment regarding Long’s delta load) indicated by the load sensor data (col. 4, line 64, “load”) at the particular time less a first load value indicated by the load sensor data at the first time ((110) Col. 4, line 67 – col. 5, line 1, “The difference between these loads are added to the vertical load calculation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Long’s scheme of determining a delta load value to augment a vertical load value into Nance’s scheme of determining the weight of the aircraft to account loading and unloading that does not overcome breakout pressure. Doing so increases accuracy of the determination.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nance (5548517; “Nance”), in view of Long (US 8340892; “Long”).
Regarding claim 18, Nance discloses, in figures 1-7, a non-transitory computer-readable medium (ABSTRACT, Nance’s system includes an onboard microcomputer/controller with program memory) comprising instructions executable by one or more processors (25) associated with an aircraft (1), wherein the instructions are configured to: obtain pressure data and temperature data for gas (col. 4, lines 48-51, “Internal strut temperature and pressure signals from each of the weight supporting landing gears are transmitted by pressure and temperature transducer assemblies”, col. 4, lines 33-34, “compressed nitrogen gas 17 inside the strut cylinder”) in respective ones of shock struts (8n, 8p, 8s) of landing gear (3, 5, 7) of the aircraft (1) during loading or unloading of the aircraft; determine, for each shock strut for a first time corresponding to an end of a first change in gas pressure due to movement of a piston of the shock strut during the loading or the unloading of the aircraft (col. 10 lines 48-56, Nance performs weight and center of gravity determinations for an aircraft at least when the plane is retired from service at the end of a day and when the plane is brought back into service at the beginning of the day, the examiner construes the timing to be at the end of piston movement due to unloading or loading), a friction value associated with the shock strut based on a gas pressure at the first time indicated by the pressure data and a gas temperature at the first time indicated by the temperature data (col. 10, line 63- col. 11, line 2, Nance determines drag values for each strut using current pressure and temperature measurements); determine for each shock strut for a particular time before the loading or the unloading of the aircraft causes a second change in gas pressure of one or more of the shock struts as indicated by the pressure data for the shock struts (see previous comment), a load delta value for each shock strut at the particular time (col. 10, lines 48-56, examiner notes Nance’s delta values are zero since measurements are taken when the aircraft has retired for the day and no loading or unloading is taking place); compute, for the particular time, a weight of the aircraft ((Wt) col. 11, line 7, Nance calculates the aircraft’s weight) based on the gas pressures (col. 6, lines 47-51, psi), the friction values associated with the shock struts (col. 6, lines 47-51, Un, Up, Us), the load delta values associated with the shock struts at the particular time, and unsupported weights of components (col. 6, lines 47-51, Un, Up, Us) of each landing gear (3, 5, 7) not supported by the gas pressure in the shock strut for each of the shock struts (col. 6, lines 64-66) at the particular time (see previous comment); and provide, to one or more display devices (29), first output that indicates the weight of the aircraft (col. 11, line 8, “display the weight”).
Nance fails to disclose determining weight based on load sensor data and attitude.
Long teaches, in figure 3, obtaining an attitude of the aircraft (col. 5, line 51-52, “pitch attitude sensor”); obtain load sensor data (col. 4, line 64, “load”) from load sensors (130) associated with each landing gear (103), wherein the load sensor data (col. 4, line 64, “load”) for each landing gear (3, 5, 7) corresponds to vertical load exerted (col. 4, lines 61-62, Long determines the “delta load between the breakout pressure load and the current state”) by the landing gear on the aircraft; compute weight of the aircraft based on attitude (see claim 2, Long resolves the force acting on the strut into a vertically acting component based on aircraft attitude).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Long’s scheme of determining a load value and attitude to augment a vertical load value into Nance’s scheme of determining the weight of the aircraft to account loading and unloading that does not overcome breakout pressure. Doing so increases accuracy of the determination.
Regarding claim 19, Nance and Long disclose, in Nance’s figures 1-7, the instructions are further configured to compute a center of gravity of the aircraft for the particular time (col. 11, line 7, Nance’s microcomputer computes the center of gravity of the aircraft).
Regarding claim 20, Nance and Long disclose, in Nance’s figures 1-7, the instructions are further configured to provide second output that indicates the center of gravity (col. 11, line 8, “center of gravity”) to the one or more display devices (29).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10 and 16-17 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 claim 5, examiner notes a search has not revealed art teaching or suggesting Nance and Long in combination with a location of an x coordinate for the center of gravity in an x, y coordinate system is a sum of first values for each landing gear divided by the weight of the aircraft; and a first value of the first values for each landing gear is a vertical load of the vertical loads of the landing gear multiplied by a normal distance in the x, y plane of an effective ground contact location for the landing gear from a y ordinal axis. The examiner concludes prior existence of the combination is improbable.
Regarding claim 6, examiner notes a search has not revealed art teaching or suggesting Nance and Long in combination with the computer system is further configured to change a status of the aircraft to a grounded status in response to a determination that the center of gravity of the aircraft is outside of a threshold center of gravity region. The examiner concludes prior existence of the combination is improbable.
Regarding claim 7, examiner notes a search has not revealed art teaching or suggesting Nance in combination with the computer system is further configured to change a status of the aircraft to a grounded status in response to a determination that the weight of the aircraft is above a threshold weight. The examiner concludes prior existence of the combination is improbable.
Regarding claim 10, examiner notes a search has not revealed art teaching or suggesting Nance in combination with the computer system is further configured to analyze the pressure data for each shock strut of the plurality of landing gear to determine the first time for each shock strut of the landing gear. The examiner concludes prior existence of the combination is improbable.
Regarding claim 16, examiner notes a search has not revealed art teaching or suggesting Nance and Long in combination with analyzing the pressure data, for each shock strut to determine the first time for each shock strut. The examiner concludes prior existence of the combination is improbable.
Regarding claim 17, examiner notes a search has not revealed art teaching or suggesting Nance and Long in combination with changing a status of the aircraft to a grounded status responsive to the weight of the aircraft being above a threshold value. The examiner concludes prior existence of the combination is improbable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY P GRAVES whose telephone number is (469)295-9072. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/TIMOTHY P GRAVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855