DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Request for Continued Examination, and Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/30/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejections made to claims 8-20 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Applicant amendment and argument against prior art MCDONALD et al. (US 20170259654 A1; hereafter McDonald)
as evidenced by Wikipedia. (https://web.archive.org/web/20160926210721/https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idle_(CPU)), and further in view of AIMAQ et al. (AU 2018208777 A1; hereafter Aimaq) in regards to the added limitations of the placements of the latch releases were persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejection in view of McDonald as evidenced by Wikipedia and further in evidenced by Aimaq is withdrawn. However, a new basis of rejection has been made in view of McDonald, as evidenced by Wikipedia and further evidenced by Spencer (US 10648205 B2) and Whitham (US 20180313117 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejections made to claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 103 against prior art McDonald
as evidenced by Wikipedia, and further in view of Aimaq have been fully considered. However, the examiner disagrees that Wikipedia does not qualify as relevant prior art. The reference cited merely speaks of a typical CPU's functionalities that are widely used in many fields of technology. Since the invention would be utilizing a controller to process the wake command which is well known in the art to be a generic computer or equivalent, the functionalities of a generic computer (such as those referenced by Wikipedia) would be relevant. Therefore, the use of prior art Wikipedia for claims 1-20 remains.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 12/30/2025, with respect to the rejection made to claim 6 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Applicant amendment and argument against prior art McDonald
as evidenced by Wikipedia, and further in view of Aimaq were persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejection in view of McDonald as evidenced by Wikipedia and further in evidenced by Aimaq is withdrawn. However, a new basis of rejection has been made in view of McDonald, as evidenced by Wikipedia and further evidenced by Spencer (US 10648205 B2) and Whitham (US 20180313117 A1).
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites “each of the plurality of latch release assemblies” however, claim 18 in which claim 20 depends on does not recite a plurality of latch release assemblies. Claim 19 does introduce a plurality of latch release assemblies. The examiner suggests amending claim 20 to be dependent on claim 19 rather than claim 18. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of McDonald as evidenced by Wikipedia.
Regarding claim 1, McDonald discloses a method of moving a door that is part of a truck cover assembly that selectively covers a truck bed of a truck, the method comprising of ([0034]; “A rear perspective view of an illustrative truck 2, such as a pickup truck, for example, is shown in FIG. 1. Truck 2 includes forward passenger compartment or cab 4 and rearward bed area 6. Sitting on top of bed 6 is a cap 8 which forms compartment 10 in conjunction with the interior of bed 6. In an illustrative embodiment, cap 8 includes a rear lift door 12 that swings open and closed to selectively limit access into compartment 10 of bed 6.”):
providing a first latch release assembly which includes an actuator and a latch arm ([0034]; As shown in this illustrative view, lift door 12 includes a latch assembly 14 and illustratively includes handle portion 16, and opposed rods 18 and 20 extending to electrical/mechanical actuators 22 and 24 which attach to latches 26 and 28, respectively.”);
providing a second latch release assembly which includes an actuator and a latch arm ([0034]; “As shown in this illustrative view, lift door 12 includes a latch assembly 14 and illustratively includes handle portion 16, and opposed rods 18 and 20 extending to electrical/mechanical actuators 22 and 24 which attach to latches 26 and 28, respectively.”);
providing an input and a controller ([0038]; Also shown in this view is actuator controller 50 that includes button 32 wired to electrical connectors 52 and 54 on electronic actuators 22 and 24, respectively.”);
supplying power to the controller ([0038]; “Conversely, when the vehicle is unlocked, the controller circuit is electrically powered and will operate to unlatch the door.”);
determining the input is selected from the group consisting of a wired input source and a wireless input source when the wake command is received by the controller ([0043]; “The controller may be located remotely from button 32 and be electrically connected to the button and actuators through wire(s) or wirelessly.”);
confirming a sequence is received from the input is a predetermined sequence ([0038]; “Controller 50 is configured so when button 32 is depressed, it sends a signal to both actuators 22 and 24 to pull rotary latch catches 36 and 38 illustratively in directions 48 and 46, respectively, to create an unlatched condition the same as the mechanical system did through rods 18 and 20.”
Note: It is well known in the art that key fobs send a coded radio signal which then gets received and confirmed by the vehicle to determine whether to perform a certain function.);
energizing a power relay when the predetermined sequence is confirmed ([0041]; “Controller 50 includes a button 32 located thereon, as well as electrical connection 92 which connects to connectors 52 and 54 of electronic actuators 22 and 24, respectively (see, also, FIG. 4B). When button 32 is pressed, a signal is sent from the controller through connector 92 and lines or wires (not shown) to connectors 52 and 54 which activate actuators 22 and 24 to operate latches 36 and 38, respectively (see, also, FIG. 4B).”);
directing power from a power source to the actuator of the first latch release assembly and to the actuator of the second latch release assembly ([0041]; “Controller 50 includes a button 32 located thereon, as well as electrical connection 92 which connects to connectors 52 and 54 of electronic actuators 22 and 24, respectively (see, also, FIG. 4B).”);
energizing the actuator of the first latch release assembly to move the latch arm of the first latch release assembly ([0041]; “When button 32 is pressed, a signal is sent from the controller through connector 92 and lines or wires (not shown) to connectors 52 and 54 which activate actuators 22 and 24 to operate latches 36 and 38, respectively (see, also, FIG. 4B). This has the effect of automatically releasing the latches instead of manually releasing them.”); and
energizing the actuator of the second latch release assembly to move the latch arm of the second latch release assembly. ([0041]; “When button 32 is pressed, a signal is sent from the controller through connector 92 and lines or wires (not shown) to connectors 52 and 54 which activate actuators 22 and 24 to operate latches 36 and 38, respectively (see, also, FIG. 4B). This has the effect of automatically releasing the latches instead of manually releasing them.”)
McDonald, does not disclose:
waiting for a predetermined period of time;
determining whether a wake command has been received by the controller, wherein when the wake command has not been received by the controller, the reverts to a wait mode;
However, Wikipedia teaches waiting for a predetermined period of time; ([0003]; “Common methods are reducing the clock speed along with the CPU voltage and sending parts of the processor into a sleep state.”
Note: Examiner has interpreted predetermined period of time as the reduce time that the CPU checks during the idle mode in order to save on computation power.)
determining whether a wake command has been received by the controller, wherein when the wake command has not been received by the controller, the controller proceeds to a wait mode; ([0001] & [0002]; “A computer processor is described as idle when it is not being used by any program. Every program or task that runs on a computer system occupies a certain amount of processing time on the CPU. If the CPU has completed all tasks it is idle.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified McDonald with Wikipedia. This modification would have been obvious as Wikipedia discloses a well-known function found in typical computers. Incorporating this function to the teachings of McDonald would save computation power during idle times.
Regarding claim 2, McDonald in view of Wikipedia discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, McDonald discloses deenergizing the actuator of the first latch release assembly and of the actuator of the second latch release assembly, wherein subsequently the controller reverts to the wait mode. ([0038]; “When the operator engages the lock button, the circuit for the controller is electrically disconnected and will not operate.”)
Regarding claim 4, McDonald in view of Wikipedia discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, McDonald discloses the wireless input source is selected from the group consisting at least one of a keypad, a phone app, a key fob, a key, a Bluetooth device, a Wifi device, a RFID device, a NFC device, and a computer. ([0043]; “In these embodiments the controller may receive a lock/unlock signal from the vehicle's FOB or door lock switch to lock/unlock the latches and/or operate the latch actuators.”)
Regarding claim 7, McDonald in view of Wikipedia discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, McDonald discloses directing power from the power source to the actuator of the first latch release assembly and to the actuator of the second latch release assembly when the wake command is received from the wireless input source. ([0044]; “When the operator activates the locking system through a handheld key fob or lock/unlock button, the system is activated including the controller which may then unlock the lift door.”)
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of McDonald as evidenced by Wikipedia in further view of Aimaq.
Regarding claim 3, McDonald in view of Wikipedia discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Aimaq in the same field of endeavor teaches the wired input source is a keypad. ([0055]; “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, control unit 201 is comprised in a housing 227 (not shown) which comprises a user interface 202 (not shown) in the form of a keypad 242. The keypad 242 comprises one or more buttons 242a (not shown) which may be used to open and close and/or lock and unlock hard lid 140.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
Claimed invention to have modified McDonald with Aimaq. This modification would have been obvious as Aimaq cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (wired/wireless control of a truck bed cover) and it would have been beneficial to add the keypad taught in Aimaq into the teachings of McDonald to allow the user to have another means of operating the truck bed cover. Having a keypad attached to the truck bed cover would allow for quick and easy access while also providing secure access by only allowing specific passcodes to operate the truck bed cover.
Regarding claim 5, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Aimaq discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Aimaq in the same field of endeavor teaches the status of the sequence is selected from the group consisting of the predetermined sequence and a nonpredetermined sequence. ([0050]; “If the vehicle is unlocked and the hard lid opening proximity switch, motion sensor or phone app are activated, the control unit will action to open the rotary latches of the lid then action for the electric struts to open the hard lid. As will be described below, when hard lid is opened, the control unit may also switch the trayback light on.”
Note: Wireless communications such as via mobile app, key fob, etc. send a code to a receiver that is connected to the vehicle. Which then determine if it matches the preset code in order to operate certain functions of the vehicle (matching predetermined sequences).)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
Claimed invention to have modified McDonald with Aimaq. This modification would have been obvious as Aimaq cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (wired/wireless control of a truck bed cover) and it would have been beneficial to add the keypad taught in Aimaq into the teachings of McDonald to allow the user to have another means of operating the truck bed cover. Having a keypad attached to the truck bed cover would allow for quick and easy access while also providing secure access by only allowing specific passcodes to operate the truck bed cover.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of McDonald as evidenced by Wikipedia in further view of Whitham.
Regarding claim 6, McDonald in view of Wikipedia discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Whitham in the same field of endeavor teaches signaling a status of the sequence in a form of at least one flashing light. ([0117]; “When the unlock button 62 on wireless control 58 is pressed a single time, a wireless signal is transmitted over the air to antenna 44 of vehicle 18, which is transmitted to receiver 46 which is transmitted to processor 40. In response to receiving this signal, and according to instructions stored in memory 42, processor 40 transmits a control signal to unlock lock door locks 26. Processor 40 also transmits a control signal to brake lights 48 thereby causing brake lights 48 to flash two times (or in other embodiments once, three times or more) which provides a visual indication to the user that the wireless signal was received and the door locks 26 have been unlocked.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
Claimed invention to have modified McDonald with Whitham. This modification would have been obvious because both McDonald and Whitham cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (truck cover control) and it would have been beneficial to receive a notification that the command has been received and being executed.
Claims 8-13, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of McDonald as evidenced by Wikipedia and further evidenced by Spencer.
Claim 8 recites a method claim reciting largely similar limitations of claim 1 above and it therefore is rejected for the same reasons. In addition to these limitations Spencer in the same field of endeavor teaches the first latch release assembly extending along a first side wall of the door ([col. 3 lines 30-36]; “With continued reference to FIG. 1, and additional reference to FIGS. 2-5, the tonneau cover system 10 includes a latch mechanism 50A mounted to the first rail 22A for latching the header 32 onto the first rail 22A when the tonneau cover 30 is in the deployed arrangement of FIG. 1. The latch mechanism 50A generally includes a frame 52A, which is secured to an undersurface of the first rail 22A.”)
The second latch release assembly extending along a second side wall of the door which is located opposite the first side wall of the door ([col. 4 lines 38-45]; “With reference to FIGS. 6 and 7, a passenger side latch mechanism in accordance with the present teachings is illustrated at reference numeral 50B. The latch mechanism 50B is mounted to the second rail 22B. Unlike the latch mechanism 50A, the latch mechanism 50B is an automatic latch mechanism that automatically moves from the locked position of FIG. 6 to an unlocked position illustrated in FIG. 7 when the tailgate 16 is opened.”)
Note: Fig. 1 depicts rails 22A and 22B on opposite ends of the truck, and latch mechanisms 50A and 50B are connected to their respective rails.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
Claimed invention to have modified McDonald with Spencer. This modification would have been obvious because both McDonald and Spencer cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (truck cover control) and it would have been beneficial to have control for operation of the truck cover be on both ends of the truck for ease of access.
Regarding claim 9, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, McDonald in the same field of endeavor teaches determining the input is selected from the group consisting of a wired input source and a wireless input source when the wake command is received by the controller ([0043]; “The controller may be located remotely from button 32 and be electrically connected to the button and actuators through wire(s) or wirelessly.”);
Regarding claim 10, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, McDonald in the same field of endeavor teaches confirming a sequence is received from the input is a predetermined sequence ([0038]; “Controller 50 is configured so when button 32 is depressed, it sends a signal to both actuators 22 and 24 to pull rotary latch catches 36 and 38 illustratively in directions 48 and 46, respectively, to create an unlatched condition the same as the mechanical system did through rods 18 and 20.”
Note: It is well known in the art that key fobs send a coded radio signal which then gets received and confirmed by the vehicle to determine whether to perform a certain function.);
Regarding claim 13, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, McDonald teaches the steps of deenergizing the actuator of the first latch release assembly and of the actuator of the second latch release assembly, wherein subsequently the controller reverts to the wait mode. ([0038]; “When the operator engages the lock button, the circuit for the controller is electrically disconnected and will not operate.”)
Regarding claim 15, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, McDonald teaches the wireless input source is selected from the group consisting at least one of a keypad, a phone app, a key fob, a key, a Bluetooth device, a Wifi device, a RFID device, a NFC device, and a computer. ([0043]; “In these embodiments the controller may receive a lock/unlock signal from the vehicle's FOB or door lock switch to lock/unlock the latches and/or operate the latch actuators.”)
Regarding claim 17, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Additionally, McDonald teaches the steps of directing power from the power source to the actuator of the first latch release assembly and to the actuator of the second latch release assembly when the wake command is received from the wireless input source. ([0044]; “When the operator activates the locking system through a handheld key fob or lock/unlock button, the system is activated including the controller which may then unlock the lift door.”)
Claim 18 recites a method claim reciting largely similar limitations of claim 1 above and it therefore is rejected for the same reasons. In addition to these limitations Spencer in the same field of endeavor teaches the at least one latch release assembly extending along a side wall of the door ([col. 3 lines 30-36]; “With continued reference to FIG. 1, and additional reference to FIGS. 2-5, the tonneau cover system 10 includes a latch mechanism 50A mounted to the first rail 22A for latching the header 32 onto the first rail 22A when the tonneau cover 30 is in the deployed arrangement of FIG. 1. The latch mechanism 50A generally includes a frame 52A, which is secured to an undersurface of the first rail 22A.”)
Regarding claim 19, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, McDonald teaches the at least one latch release assembly is a plurality of latch release assemblies ([0034]; “As shown in this illustrative view, lift door 12 includes a latch assembly 14 and illustratively includes handle portion 16, and opposed rods 18 and 20 extending to electrical/mechanical actuators 22 and 24 which attach to latches 26 and 28, respectively.”);
Regarding claim 20, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claim 18. Additionally, McDonald teaches each of the plurality of latch release assemblies includes its own actuator and latch arm ([0034]; “As shown in this illustrative view, lift door 12 includes a latch assembly 14 and illustratively includes handle portion 16, and opposed rods 18 and 20 extending to electrical/mechanical actuators 22 and 24 which attach to latches 26 and 28, respectively.”);
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of McDonald as evidenced by Wikipedia in further view of Spencer and Whitham.
Regarding claim 11, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claim 10. Additionally, Whitham in the same field of endeavor teaches the step of signaling a status of the sequence in a form of at least one flashing light. ([0117]; “When the unlock button 62 on wireless control 58 is pressed a single time, a wireless signal is transmitted over the air to antenna 44 of vehicle 18, which is transmitted to receiver 46 which is transmitted to processor 40. In response to receiving this signal, and according to instructions stored in memory 42, processor 40 transmits a control signal to unlock lock door locks 26. Processor 40 also transmits a control signal to brake lights 48 thereby causing brake lights 48 to flash two times (or in other embodiments once, three times or more) which provides a visual indication to the user that the wireless signal was received and the door locks 26 have been unlocked.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
Claimed invention to have modified McDonald with Spencer and Whitham. This modification would have been obvious because both McDonald, Spencer and Whitham cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (truck cover control) and it would have been beneficial to receive a notification that the command has been received and being executed.
Regarding claim 12, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer and Whitham discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, McDonald teaches energizing a power relay when the predetermined sequence is confirmed ([0041]; “Controller 50 includes a button 32 located thereon, as well as electrical connection 92 which connects to connectors 52 and 54 of electronic actuators 22 and 24, respectively (see, also, FIG. 4B). When button 32 is pressed, a signal is sent from the controller through connector 92 and lines or wires (not shown) to connectors 52 and 54 which activate actuators 22 and 24 to operate latches 36 and 38, respectively (see, also, FIG. 4B).”);
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of McDonald as evidenced by Wikipedia in further view of Spencer and Aimaq.
Regarding claim 14, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Additionally, Aimaq in the same field of endeavor teaches the wired input source is a keypad. ([0055]; “As shown in FIGS. 1 and 3, control unit 201 is comprised in a housing 227 (not shown) which comprises a user interface 202 (not shown) in the form of a keypad 242. The keypad 242 comprises one or more buttons 242a (not shown) which may be used to open and close and/or lock and unlock hard lid 140.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
Claimed invention to have modified McDonald with Spencer and Aimaq. This modification would have been obvious as McDonald, Spencer and Aimaq cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (wired/wireless control of a truck bed cover) and it would have been beneficial to add the keypad taught in Aimaq to allow the user to have another means of operating the truck bed cover. Having a keypad attached to the truck bed cover would allow for quick and easy access while also providing secure access by only allowing specific passcodes to operate the truck bed cover.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of McDonald as evidenced by Wikipedia in further view of Spencer, Whitham and Aimaq.
Regarding claim 16, McDonald in view of Wikipedia and in further view of Spencer and Whitham discloses all the limitations of claim 11. Additionally, Aimaq in the same field of endeavor teaches the status of the sequence is selected from the group consisting of the predetermined sequence and a nonpredetermined sequence. ([0050]; “If the vehicle is unlocked and the hard lid opening proximity switch, motion sensor or phone app are activated, the control unit will action to open the rotary latches of the lid then action for the electric struts to open the hard lid. As will be described below, when hard lid is opened, the control unit may also switch the trayback light on.”
Note: Wireless communications such as via mobile app, key fob, etc. send a code to a receiver that is connected to the vehicle. Which then determine if it matches the preset code in order to operate certain functions of the vehicle (matching predetermined sequences).)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
Claimed invention to have modified McDonald with Spencer, Whitham Aimaq. This modification would have been obvious as McDonald, Spencer, Whitham and Aimaq cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (wired/wireless control of a truck bed cover) and it would have been beneficial to add the keypad taught in Aimaq into the teachings of McDonald to allow the user to have another means of operating the truck bed cover. Having a keypad attached to the truck bed cover would allow for quick and easy access while also providing secure access by only allowing specific passcodes to operate the truck bed cover.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.
/B.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JAMES J LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668