DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 11/17/2025.
Claim 19 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-18, and 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 116 553.9, filed on 06/25/2021.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Response to Amendment
With regards to the objections to claims 2, 3, 7, and 14, the amendments made to these claims clarify the informalities stated in the previous office action. Therefore, the objections to claims 2, 3, 7, and 14 are withdrawn.
With regards to the 112(b) rejection made to claims 2, 3, and 10; the amendments made to these claims clarify the indefiniteness stated in the previous office action. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection to claims 2, 3, and 10 is withdrawn.
With regards to the 101 rejection made to claims 18 and 19; the amendment made to claim 18 provides sufficient structure to the claim. Therefore, the 101 rejection to claim 18 is withdrawn. Additionally, the cancellation of claim 19 renders the rejection moot. Therefore, the 101 rejection to claim 19 is withdrawn.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed on 11/17/2025, with respect to the objection to the drawings, have been fully considered and persuasive. Therefore, the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed on 11/17/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8-19 under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered. However the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments made to overcome the 102 rejection made in the previous office action.
Applicant argues that the prior art Gempel “does not disclose a person model representing the body geometry and the body kinematics of the person. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Gempel does teach sensing a person inside a vehicle ([0015]; "Preferably, the 3D sensor is additionally suitable, in particular provided and configured, to detect an obstacle. The obstacle is, for example, a person, in particular an occupant of the interior.") One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sensing a person inside the vehicle would be equivalent to creating a "person model" as sensing a person would require the system to sense the body parts of a person. Additionally, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “body kinematics” merely defines the position and velocities of each segment of the body. It does not define the limits in which the human body can move and does not describe how the human body naturally moves.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed on 11/17/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 4, 6, 7, 12-15, and 20 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. However, since the 102 rejections made to the independent claims still stand, the rejection made to these claims are also not withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Noted as “Previously Presented”. However, amendments were made to the claim. Appropriate correction to recite “Currently Presented” 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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are:
Control arrangement in claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a control arrangement being provided, by which the drive arrangement is controlled in an adjustment routine…”.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Control arrangement had been interpreted as a “processor” as indicated in the specification. [pg. 20 lines 17-18]; “the control arrangement 8 comprises a memory in which the computer program product is stored, and also a processor for processing the instructions.”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (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 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 1-3, 5, 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gempel et al. (DE 102018204053 A1; hereafter Gempel).
Regarding claim 1, Gempel discloses:
A method for operating an adjustment system for an interior of a motor vehicle, the adjustment system comprising a motor-adjustable interior element for receiving at least one body part of a person ([0020]; “Preferably, the interior has an electric motor adjustable seat which has at least one of the electric motor adjustment drives.”), the motor-adjustable interior element being adjustable between different configurations by way of adjustment kinematics by a drive arrangement with at least one actuator ([0020]; “In particular, the adjustment part is a headrest, a backrest and/or a seat surface of the respective seat. Alternatively, the adjustment part is an armrest. For example, each component of the seat is assigned at least one of the electric motor adjustment drives.”), a control arrangement being provided ([0044]; “…the adjustment is controlled centrally by means of the control unit 28.”), by which the drive arrangement is controlled in an adjustment routine in order to adjust the motor-adjustable interior element from an initial configuration into an end configuration by way of the adjustment kinematics ([0002]; “The adjustment part is, for example, a seat or a part of a seat, such as a backrest or a headrest.” [0003]; “To further increase comfort, the adjustment parts are increasingly being adjusted by electric motors… The respective electric motor is usually operated depending on a user input, for example a continuous or only a one-time user input is used.” Note: It is understood that the “one-time user input” described by Gempel would typically cause the adjustment parts to move from a starting position to an ending position.,
wherein the control arrangement has a person model for the person received by the motor-adjustable interior element, said person model representing the body geometry and the body kinematics of the person, and also an interior element model representing the interior element geometry and the adjustment kinematics of the motor-adjustable interior element ([0044]; “A model is stored in the control unit 28 for all adjustment parts 8 and all electromotive adjustment drives 6.”, in that the body configurations of the person that result from a motorized adjustment of the interior element are predicted by the control arrangement on the basis of the person model and the interior element model, and in that the control in the adjustment routine is implemented by the control arrangement while complying with a comfort specification for the resulting body configurations. ([0014]; “Preferably, the position of another of the adjustment parts is also used to determine this adjustment path. Preferably, the adjustment path is shortened when the further adjustment part is located in the adjustment path. As a result, the adjustment part cannot be moved against the other adjustment part. For example, the anatomy of the interior occupants is also taken into account so that injuries to them are prevented.”)
Regarding claim 2, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Gempel discloses:
The method according to Claim 1, wherein a path planning routine is implemented by the control arrangement, in which path planning routine determines an adjustment path from the initial configuration into the end configuration while complying with the comfort specification is determined on the basis of the interior element model, in that the control in the adjustment routine is implemented by means of the control arrangement in accordance with the adjustment path determined ([0014]; “Preferably, the position of another of the adjustment parts is also used to determine this adjustment path. Preferably, the adjustment path is shortened when the further adjustment part is located in the adjustment path. As a result, the adjustment part cannot be moved against the other adjustment part. For example, the anatomy of the interior occupants is also taken into account so that injuries to them are prevented.”)
Regarding claim 3, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Additionally Gempel discloses:
The method according to Claim 2, wherein in the path planning routine an adjustment path while complying with the comfort specification is determined on the basis of the interior element model and the adjustment path determined is optimized with regard to at least one further constraint, and in that the optimized adjustment path is checked for compliance with the comfort specification and, upon successful checking, is used as the adjustment path in the control ([0038]; “In this case, the adjustment path 10 is reduced and thus limited, so that a minimum distance between the steering wheel rim 14 and the components of the electrically adjustable seat 16 is ensured.”)
Regarding claim 5, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Gempel discloses:
The method according to Claim 1 wherein the comfort specification concerns at least one predicted interaction parameter between the person and at least one object in the interior ([0015]; “The obstacle is detected by means of the 3D sensor, and preferably at least one of the adjustment paths is adjusted depending on the position of the obstacle.”)
Regarding claim 8, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Gempel discloses:
The method according to Claim 1 wherein an end configuration specification, in accordance with which different end configurations are allowed, is provided for the adjustment routine, and in that the control in the adjustment routine is implemented by the control arrangement while complying with the comfort specification into one of these allowed end configurations. ([0016]; “Alternatively, at least one of the adjustment paths is set in such a way that movement against the obstacle is possible but damage to the obstacle is prevented. If the obstacle is a person, it is possible, for example, to move the adjustment part towards the person, in particular to move a backrest of a seat towards the occupant. However, the adjustment path is expediently shortened so that injury to the person is essentially ruled out.”)
Regarding claim 9, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Gempel discloses:
The method according to Claim 1 wherein the control arrangement has an obstacle representation of objects in the interior for collision checking during the adjustment, and in that in the path planning routine a collision-free adjustment path from the initial configuration into the end configuration is determined on the basis of the obstacle representation ([0015]; “If an adjustment part is not only adjustable along a single predetermined adjustment path, but for example a target position can be reached via several different adjustment paths, the adjustment path is expediently selected and thus adjusted depending on the position of the obstacle.”)
Regarding claim 10, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 9. Additionally Gempel discloses:
The method according to Claim 9, wherein the control arrangement determines the configuration on the basis of the detection of the motor-adjustable interior element by way of an interior sensor arrangement ([0013]; “For example, the 3D sensor is used to determine the position of the adjustment parts relative to the 3D sensor. In other words, the 3D sensor is used as a reference system to determine the position of the adjustment parts.”)
Regarding claim 11, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Gempel discloses:
The method according to Claim 1 wherein an identification of the interior elements arranged in the interior is implemented by the control arrangement in an identification routine, and in that the interior element model and/or the obstacle representation are/is generated by the control arrangement on the basis of the identification. ([0048]; “In other words, the adjustment of the adjustment parts 8 is combined with central monitoring by means of the 3D sensor 22, which detects the entire interior space 2. As a result, it is possible to detect the obstacles 38 and to adjust and/or restrict the adjustment accordingly.”)
Regarding claim 17, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Gempel discloses:
A motor vehicle for carrying out the method according to Claim 1. ([Fig. 1])
Claim 16 claims a structure to operate the methods described in claim 1. In addition, all limitations recited in claim 16 can be mapped to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejection for the same reason.
Regarding claim 18, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 16. Additionally Gempel discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions which have the effect that a control arrangement according to Claim 16 is caused to control the drive arrangement in an adjustment routine in order to adjust the motor adjustable interior element from an initial configuration into an end configuration by way of the adjustment kinematics, to predict the body configurations of the person that result from a motorized adjustment of the interior element on the basis of the person model and the interior element model and to implement the control in the adjustment routine while complying with a comfort specification for the resulting body configurations. ([0140]; “The single chip microcomputer of the electric control unit of the present invention stores a pre-programmed motor control program, as shown in FIG 7, and the specific execution steps are as follows:”)
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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Gempel et al. (DE 102018204053 A1; hereafter Gempel) as evidenced by Wang et al. (CN 111267681 A; hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 4, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Wang discloses:
The method according to Claim 1 wherein the comfort specification concerns at least one predicted body parameter of the body configurations ([0102]; “The basic idea of the seat adjustment scheme is: after obtaining the human body dimensions, determine the optimal solution for each joint angle, and then calculate the driver's seat position state (H point position and seat cushion and backrest inclination angles) according to the automotive ergonomics human geometry model shown in Figure 4. Among them, the principle for determining the optimal solution of each joint angle is: for a determined set of joint angles, the basic riding equation must be satisfied and the joint angles must be within the ergonomically recommended range and as close to the middle value of the recommended range as possible.”
Note: Volume contains both car seat volume and occupant volume as discussed in claim 1.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gempel with Wang. This modification would have been obvious because both Gempel and Wang cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle seat adjustment systems) and it would have been beneficial to create a model of the occupant’s body in order to optimally maneuver the seat without compromising their comfort.
Regarding claim 6, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Wang discloses:
The method according to Claim 1 wherein the comfort specification contains the compliance with at least one threshold value ([0102]; “Among them, the principle for determining the optimal solution of each joint angle is: for a determined set of joint angles, the basic riding equation must be satisfied and the joint angles must be within the ergonomically recommended range and as close to the middle value of the recommended range as possible.”), and/or in that the comfort specification contains the optimization of a comfort weighting assigned to the at least one body parameter and/or at least one comfort weighting assigned to the interaction parameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gempel with Wang. This modification would have been obvious because both Gempel and Wang cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle seat adjustment systems) and it would have been beneficial to have a range/threshold of values as there may be situations where the ideal conditions cannot be met.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Gempel et al. (DE 102018204053 A1; hereafter Gempel) as evidenced by Burk et al. (US 20220016999 A1; hereafter Burk).
Regarding claim 7, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Burk discloses:
The method according to Claim 1, wherein the person models and/or the comfort specifications for different persons are or have been stored in person profiles, and in that in a personalization routine the person profile stored for the person identified as the operator of the motor vehicle is used in the adjustment routine by the control arrangement. ([0026]; “Upon identifying the appropriate user profile 121, the customization application 106 extracts desired user settings and generates control instructions to implement the desired user settings.” [0032]; “User settings include temperature settings, video settings, seat adjustments, audio settings, privacy settings, or other settings for configuring a vehicle 103.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gempel with Burk. This modification would have been obvious because both Gempel and Burk cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (vehicle seat adjustment systems) and it would have been beneficial to create multiple profiles in situations where more than one individual occupies a given seat such as multiple people sharing a vehicle.
Claims 12-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Gempel et al. (DE 102018204053 A1; hereafter Gempel) as evidenced by Wikipedia (https://web.archive.org/web/20210507041242/https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_roadmap).
Regarding claim 12, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Wikipedia discloses:
The method according to Claim 1 wherein master configurations for the configuration of the adjustment kinematics and also master adjustment paths indicating an adjustment between master configurations are stored in the control arrangement, and in that the control in the adjustment routine is implemented at least partly on the basis of at least one of the master adjustment paths. ([0003]; “In the query phase, the start and goal configurations are connected to the graph, and the path is obtained by a Dijkstra's shortest path query.”
Note: Typically the “master configuration” in any robotic operation likewise in the case of seat adjustment would be the shortest path between the starting point and the ending point. The algorithm disclosed by Wikipedia would utilize this philosophy and would choose path that best utilizes the shortest path.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gempel with Wikipedia. This modification would have been obvious because both Gempel and Wikipedia cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (robotic operations) and it would have been beneficial to utilize the master configuration in order to find the optimal path while avoiding obstacles.
Regarding claim 13, Gempel in view of Wikipedia discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Additionally Wikipedia discloses:
The method according to Claim 12, wherein an intermediate adjustment path between an intermediate configuration, and one of the master configurations is determined in the path planning routine, and in that the control in the adjustment routine is implemented at least partly on the basis of the intermediate adjustment path ([0002]; “The basic idea behind PRM is to take random samples from the configuration space of the robot, testing them for whether they are in the free space, and use a local planner to attempt to connect these configurations to other nearby configurations. The starting and goal configurations are added in, and a graph search algorithm is applied to the resulting graph to determine a path between the starting and goal configurations.”
Note: By utilizing the “master configuration” which as described above in the claim 12 103 rejection is the shortest path from the starting to the end point, intermediate adjustment paths would be situations where an obstacle is blocking the shortest path and an alternate path would need to be used in order to avoid collision.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gempel with Wikipedia. This modification would have been obvious because both Gempel and Wikipedia cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (robotic operations) and it would have been beneficial to utilize the master configuration in order to find the optimal path while avoiding obstacles.
Regarding claim 14, Gempel in view of Wikipedia discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Additionally Gempel discloses:
The method according to Claim 12, wherein, in a learning routine, a master configuration and/or a master adjustment path are/is stored ([0044]; “…the adjustment is controlled centrally by means of the control unit 28.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gempel with Wikipedia. This modification would have been obvious because both Gempel and Wikipedia cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (robotic operations) and it would have been beneficial to store the master configuration in memory via the control unit disclosed in Gempel.
Regarding claim 15, Gempel in view of Wikipedia discloses all the limitations of claim 12. Additionally Wikipedia discloses:
The method according to Claim 12, wherein in the path planning routine an optimization of at least one master adjustment path is implemented ([0003]; “The probabilistic roadmap planner consists of two phases: a construction and a query phase. In the construction phase, a roadmap (graph) is built, approximating the motions that can be made in the environment. First, a random configuration is created. Then, it is connected to some neighbors, typically either the k nearest neighbors or all neighbors less than some predetermined distance. Configurations and connections are added to the graph until the roadmap is dense enough. In the query phase, the start and goal configurations are connected to the graph, and the path is obtained by a Dijkstra's shortest path query.”
Note: Typically when picking a new route when detecting an obstacle, segments of the master configuration are still the best paths to reach the end point optimally.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gempel with Wikipedia. This modification would have been obvious because both Gempel and Wikipedia cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (robotic operations) and it would have been beneficial to utilize the master configuration in order to find the optimal path while avoiding obstacles.
Regarding claim 20, Gempel discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Gempel discloses:
The method according to Claim 1, wherein a path planning routine is implemented by the control arrangement, in which path planning routine an adjustment path from the initial configuration into the end configuration while complying with the comfort specification is determined on the basis of the interior element model, in that the control in the adjustment routine is implemented by the control arrangement in accordance with the adjustment path determined,
(The limitations above are recited in claim 2. Therefore are rejection for the same reasoning. However, claim 20 does introduce new limitations that are discussed below.)
Although Gempel discloses choosing alternate routes for the seats to maneuver in order to avoid obstacles, Gempel does not disclose the methods/algorithms that are utilized in order to do so.
However Wikipedia, in the same field of endeavor (robotic operations) does disclose:
in that the adjustment path in the path planning routine is determined on the basis of a probabilistic path planning method, in that the adjustment path is determined on the basis of a rapidly exploring random tree and/or probabilistic roadmap method. ([0001]; “The probabilistic roadmap[1] planner is a motion planning algorithm in robotics, which solves the problem of determining a path between a starting configuration of the robot and a goal configuration while avoiding collisions.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gempel with Wikipedia. This modification would have been obvious because both Gempel and Wikipedia cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (robotic operations) and it would have been beneficial to utilize a well-known algorithm to operate the car seat to determine the best path while also avoiding any obstacles.
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 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
/ABDHESH K JHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights