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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The lengthy specification (24 pages) has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “control unit” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The claim limitation will thus be interpreted as follows:
The corresponding structure provided in the disclosure describes a control unit (15; 115) as being configured to operate two high frequency switching converters in a plurality of modes; provide control signal outputs at various frequencies; receive a variety of inputs; performing a variety of calculations; execute a variety of logical processes; and save stored reference data. Because the corresponding disclosure is strictly functional, it does not provide sufficient structure for the claim limitation. Therefore, “control unit” will be interpreted broadly as any structure configured to perform the functions stated in the disclosure. This may include a processing device, software, logic or any equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The examiner has carefully considered the term “control unit”. It natively meets the three-prong test as discussed above. One must then consider whether the term as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art would represent a sufficiently defined group of structures (e.g. “heat exchanger” and “air conditioner” do not generally invoke 112(f)). In this case, “control unit” does not have such a controlling definition. For example, it is too narrow a construction, based on the specification to consider that “control unit” must be a microcontroller (or functional equivalent) as one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of other control units (such as PLC, or a networked central control computer). Consequently, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of the claim, reciting only a “control unit” and its function.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of the claim, reciting only a “control unit” and its function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation "the plurality of modes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the limitation "the third switching frequency value" and “T2…the respective fractions of the control period”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation "second fraction (T2)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the limitation "the second mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the limitation "the third mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites the limitation "the third switching frequency value" and “T2…the respective fractions of the control period”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pastore et al (European Patent No. 1951003A1), hereinafter Pastore.
Regarding claim 1, Pastore teaches an induction cooktop comprising (Figure 4): a first induction heater (heater A) and a second induction heater (heater B); a control unit (common control circuit 90); a first switching converter (converter 40) and a second switching converter (converter 45), operable (Figure 6) by the control unit in a control period (control period T) to energize the first induction heater and the second induction heater, respectively; wherein the control unit is configured to operate in a first working mode (Figure 6), wherein: during at least a first fraction (first fraction T1) of the control period operate simultaneously the first switching converter with a first switching frequency value (fHB; first frequency f1) and the second switching converter with a second switching frequency value (fQR; first frequency f1); wherein the controller is capable of being configured such that the switching frequency difference between the two switching frequencies values is greater than zero and is equal to a value comprised between a first frequency threshold and a second frequency threshold or is above a third frequency threshold.
Regarding claim 2, Pastore teaches wherein (Figure 6) in the first working mode, the control period comprises a second fraction (second fraction T2) in addition to the first fraction; during the second fraction of the control period the control unit is configured to operate only one of the first and second switching converter (Paragraph 54-55) with a third switching frequency value (fHB; second frequency f2); wherein the first fraction of the control period and the second fraction of the control period are not overlapping.
Regarding claim 3, Pastore teaches (Figure 4) a control unit capable of being configure such that the switching frequency difference is not equal to an integer multiple of the alternate current frequency of the main feeding the induction cooktop.
Regarding claim 4, Pastore teaches a control unit capable of being configured to operate in a plurality of modes comprising the first mode and at least a second mode; and when the control unit operates in the second mode it is capable of being configured to: operate the first switching converter with a fourth switching frequency value in a first fraction of the control period while the second switching converter is not operating; operate the second switching converter with a fifth switching frequency value in a second fraction of the control period while the first switching converter is not operating; wherein the first fraction of the control period and the second fraction of the control period are not overlapping; and wherein the duration of the sum of the first fraction and the second fraction of the control period is equal to the duration of the control period.
Regarding claim 5, Pastore teaches a control unit capable of operating in a third mode, capable of being configured to: operate the first switching converter with a sixth switching frequency value in a first fraction of the control period while the second switching converter is not operating; operate the second switching converter with a seventh switching frequency value in a second fraction of the control period while the first switching converter is not operating; during a third fraction of the control period both the first and the second switching converter being not operating or halting or idling.
Regarding claim 6, Pastore teaches wherein (Figure 6) in the first mode, the control unit is further configured to determine the at least a first fraction of the control period from the following sets of equations (PA0 = PA(f1)*D + PA(f2)*(1 – D), PB0 = PB(f1)*D; Paragraph 59):
PA={PA(fsw1)*T1 + PA(fsw3)*T2}/T
PB = {PB(fsw2)*T1}/T
Or
PA = {PA(fsw1)*T1}/T
PB = {PB(fsw2)*T1+PB(fsw3)*T2}/T
wherein: PA and PB are a first power value request and a second power value request for the first induction heater and the second induction heater, respectively (PA0 and PB0); PA(fSW1), PA(fSW3) indicate power delivered by the first induction heater when operated at the first switching frequency value and at the third switching frequency value, respectively (PA(f1) and PA(f2)); PB(fSW2) and PB(fSW3) indicate power delivered by the second induction heater when operated at the second switching frequency value and at the third switching frequency value, respectively (PB(f1)); T1 and T2 are the respective fractions of the control period T (D = T1/T).
Regarding claim 7, Pastore teaches (Figure 6) when the control unit is configured to operate in the first mode, the sum of the first fraction of the control period and the second fraction of the control period is equal to the control period (T=T1+T2; Paragraph 57).
Regarding claim 8, Pastore teaches a control unit capable of being configured to operate according to the first mode when a working point, on a chart, defined by the couple of first and the second power values request of the first inductor and the second inductor lies above a first line on said chart; wherein on the chart on the x-axis are reported first power values request for the first induction heater and on the y-axis are second power values request for the second induction heater; wherein the first line is defined as the line passing by the points [PA = 0, PB = PBmax] and [PA = PAmax, PB = 0] on the said chart; wherein PAmax is the maximum power that the first switching converter can feed to the first inductor and PBmax is the maximum power that the second switching converter can feed to the second inductor; and wherein the chart can be stored in a memory of the control unit.
Regarding claim 9, Pastore teaches a control unit capable of being configured to select the second mode when the working point on the chart is comprised between a second line and the first line on the chart; wherein the second line is the line that passes by the two points of the chart [PA = PAmin, PB = 0] and [PA = 0, PB = PBmin]; wherein PAmin is selected as the minimum power value wherein the first switching converter can feed to the first inductor in a continuous mode, without gap in the control period, and PBmin is selected as the minimum power value wherein the second switching converter can feed to the second inductor in a continuous mode, without gap in the control period.
Regarding claim 10, Pastore teaches (Figure 5, and 8-10) a control unit capable of being configured to select the third mode when the working point on the chart is lying below the second line.
Regarding claim 17, Pastore teaches (Figure 6A) a control unit capable of operating the first switching converter and the second switching converter cyclically.
Regarding claim 18, Pastore teaches (Figure 6) wherein the third switching frequency value is different from the first switching frequency value or the second switching frequency value.
Regarding claim 19, Pastore teaches (Figure 6) the other of the first and second switching converter is not operating or halting or idling (Paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 20, Pastore teaches (Figure 4) a control unit capable of being configure such that the switching frequency difference is not an integer multiple of 50 Hz or 60 Hz.
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 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carretero et al. (European Patent No. 2506663A1) hereinafter Carretero, in View of Pastore.
Regarding claim 11, Pastore teaches a control method for controlling an induction cooktop comprising (Figure 4) a first induction heater (heater A), a second induction heater (heater B), a first switching converter (converter 40) and a second switching converter (converter 45); the first switching converter and a second switching converter being operable in a control periods (control period T) to energize the first induction heater and the second induction heater, respectively; wherein the control method comprises, in a first mode, steps of (Figure 6): during at least a first fraction (first fraction T1) of the control period operating simultaneously the first switching converter with a first switching frequency value (fHB) and the second switching converter with a second switching frequency value (fQR).
Pastore does not teach wherein a switching frequency difference between the two switching frequencies values is greater than zero and is equal to a value comprised between a first frequency threshold and a second frequency threshold or is above a third frequency threshold.
Carretero teaches a first heating frequency unit (10) with a first frequency (f1A) and a second heating frequency unit (12) with a second frequency (f2A), wherein (Paragraph 26-27) a frequency difference (f1A - f2A) between the two frequencies is greater than zero (f1A - f2A ≥ 17 kHz) and is equal to a value comprised between (fmin1,2 ≤ f1A, f2A, f1B ≤ fmax) ) a first frequency threshold (fmin1,2) and a second frequency threshold (fmax) or is above a third frequency threshold (f1A - f2A ≥ 17 kHz) for the purpose of minimizing intermodulation noises and reducing switching losses (Paragraph 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Pastore to include limitations on the first and second frequencies wherein the frequency difference is greater than or equal to 17 kHz or comprised between a first and second frequency threshold for the purpose of minimizing intermodulation noises and reducing switching losses.
Regarding claim 12, Pastore teaches (Figure 6), in the first mode, the control period comprising a second fraction (second fraction T2) in addition to the first fraction; wherein during the second fraction of the control period the method comprises the step to operate only one of the first and second switching converter (Paragraph 54-55) with a third frequency value (fHB; f2); wherein the third switching frequency value is different from the first switching frequency value; wherein the second switching converter being not operating or halting or idling (Paragraph 55); and wherein the first fraction of the control period and the second fraction of the control period are not overlapping. Therefore, the modified method of Pastore, as applied in claim 11, teaches the invention of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the modified method of Pastore, as applied in claim 11, teaches all of the aspect of the current invention as stated above except, wherein the frequency difference excludes all harmonics of the mains feeding the induction cooktop, 50 Hz, or 60 Hz (standard mains ac frequencies in Europe and United States, respectively).
While not explicitly taught in a preferred embodiment, Pastore does teach it is known to optimize converter frequencies, among other variables, as a means of improving efficiency of the induction heater. Further, Pastore teaches a step of “cycle skipping” synchronized with the zero-crossing (minimal ac amplitude) of the mains phase (e.g. 50 Hz) in order to mitigate switching surges and provide finer power control (Paragraph 73).
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have selected frequencies such that the frequency difference is not equal to or a harmonic of 50 Hz, 60 Hz, or the mains feeding the induction cooktop, because frequency selection would be a routine optimization based on the frequency of ac current available and provided through the mains. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirements. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges only involves routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 14, Pastore teaches wherein the control method comprises a plurality of working modes (Figure 6 and 7) comprising the first mode and at least a second mode. Pastore does not explicitly teach in a single embodiment, the second comprising steps of: operating the first switching converter with a fourth switching frequency value in a first fraction of the control period while the second switching converter is not operating; operating the second switching converter with a fifth switching frequency value in a second fraction of the control period while the first switching converter is not operating; wherein the first fraction of the control period and the second fraction of the control period are not overlapping; wherein the duration of the sum of the first fraction and the second fraction of the control period is equal to the duration of the control period.
However, in the disclosure, Pastore teaches a technique known in the art of driving two switching converters, each connected to an induction coil operating at the same time at their own respective fixed frequencies in a shared control period, modulating the duty cycle of the converters in order to deliver a predetermined amount of power to the coils. Alternating between the two converters (activating only one at a time) prevents the onset of interference and beat noise caused by the difference in frequencies entirely and extends the range of available power output levels (Paragraph 19-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have modified the modified method of Pastore to incorporate the disclosed technique of driving two switching converters each connected to an induction coil operating at the same time at their own respective fixed frequencies in a shared control period, alternating between the two converters activating only one at a time, in order to achieve the predictable result of entirely avoiding the onset of interference and beat noise and extending the range of available power output levels.
Regarding claim 15, Pastore teaches (Figure 6) in the first mode, the method comprises the step of determining the at least a first fraction of the control period from the following sets of equations (PA0 = PA(f1)*D + PA(f2)*(1 – D), PB0 = PB(f1)*D; Paragraph 59):
PA={PA(fsw1)*T1 + PA(fsw3)*T2}/T
PB = {PB(fsw2)*T1}/T
Or
PA = {PA(fsw1)*T1}/T
PB = {PB(fsw2)*T1+PB(fsw3)*T2}/T
wherein: PA and PB are a first power value request and a second power value request for the first induction heater and the second induction heater, respectively (PA0 and PB0); PA(fSW1), PA(fSW3) indicate power delivered by the first induction heater when operated at the first switching frequency value and at the third switching frequency value, respectively (PA(f1) and PA(f2)); PB(fSW2) and PB(fSW3) indicate power delivered by the second induction heater when operated at the second switching frequency value and at the third switching frequency value, respectively (PB(f1)); T1 and T2 are the respective fractions of the control period T (D = T1/T). Therefore, the modified method of Pastore, as applied in claim 11, teaches the invention of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Pastore teaches (Figures 5) wherein a chart containing a characteristic curve for heater A and Heater B is memorized to the memory of the control unit, comprising a graph of interpolated power output values for each heater at a range of converter frequencies (Paragraph 45).
Further, Pastore teaches is known that when using asymmetrical duty cycle control in an induction heater with two coils being operated at fixed converter frequencies simultaneously in a shared control period, the maximum power achievable to the coils is limited by the Pmax of the system, or 50% of the duty cycle (Paragraph 20-24). Thus, the Pmax limitation of the system requires switching to a control method with overlapping duty cycles of the converters within the control period in order to enable further time exposure and power to the coils. Therefore, the modified method of Pastore, as applied in claim 11, teaches the invention of claim 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS FREDRICK GAUTHIER whose telephone number is (571)272-8725. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, EDWARD LANDRUM can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/NICHOLAS FREDRICK GAUTHIER/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights