DETAILED ACTION
The following is a first action on the merits of application serial no. 18/573462 filed 12/22/2023.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12/22/23 has been considered.
Drawings
Figures 9 and 9a should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 2a: interior component; 3a: external component; 9: magnetorheological medium; 14: magnetic field sensor; 45: gap section; 46: variable gap height; 50: console; 59: fastening device; 101: control element, operating element; 102: outer diameter; 103: operating roller; 104: control button. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) shown in the reference list, but not mentioned in the description: 14: magnetic field sensor; 45: gap section; 46: variable gap height; 50: console; 59: fastening device; 101: control element, operating element; 102: outer diameter; 103: operating roller; 104: control button. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the two brake components are pivotable relative to one another as recited in claim 60; an operating element connected to the magnetorheological braking device as recited in claim 72; and a control roller and/or a control button as recited in claim 73 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 43 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 43 recites the limitation “the largest diameter the particles to the largest transverse extent…..”. Between “diameter” and “particles”, “the” should be changed to “of”. 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.
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(s) is/are:
-“….at least one electric coil unit (generic placeholder) being configured to……. (function)” in claims 40 and 75.
-“…..a control unit (generic placeholder) configured for……. (function)” in claim 59.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and 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 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 41, 43, 51, 52, 65, 67, 73, 75, 77 and 78 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.
-Claim 41 recites the limitation "the individual magnetically polarizable particles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due claim 40 not reciting (introducing) the limitation.
-Claim 43 recites the limitation “the largest diameter”…..”the largest transverse” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due claim 40 not reciting (introducing) the limitation.
-Claim 51 recites the limitation “the largest diameter of the magnetically polarizable particles” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due claim 40 not reciting (introducing) the limitation.
-Claim 52 recites the limitation “the maximum transverse extension……..the maximum diameter of the magnetically polarizable particles” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due claim 40 not reciting (introducing) the limitation.
-Claim 65 recites the limitation “a ratio of the magnetic permeability of an arm to a magnetic permeability of an intermediate section is greater than 100” in last three lines. It is unclear as to if a “standard of measurement” should be added to the value 100, i.e, square meters, darcy, etc., please clarify.
-Claim 67 recites the limitation “generates/provides” in line 3. It is unclear as to what these two terms are being used together, please clarify and/or amend accordingly.
-Claim 67 recites the limitation “the circumference or length of the brake gap” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due claim 40 not reciting (introducing) the limitation.
-Claim 73 recites the limitation “the control element” in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due claims 40 and 72 not reciting (introducing) the limitation.
-Claim 75 recites the limitation “the maximum diameter” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 77 recites the limitation “the individual particles” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due claim 76 not reciting (introducing) the limitation.
-Claim 78 recites the limitation “the particle concentration”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim due claim 76 not reciting (introducing) the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (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.
Claim(s) 40, 41, 49, 50, 52, 55, 57-62, 66, 68-74, 76 and 77 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Battlogg 20160153508. Note: the use of the term “or” indicates that the limitations preceding or following the term doesn’t need to be met entirely and the recitations are in the form of “alternative” embodiments.
As to claim 40, Battlogg discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements, comprising: at least two braking components (2, 3; Figure 3); a receiving space (5) with a braking gap being formed between the at least two braking components, containing a magnetorheological medium with magnetically polarizable particles (19) that can be influenced by a magnetic field ([0209]); at least one core ([0146]) and at least one electric coil unit (7) being configured to generate a controllable magnetic field (8) in the brake gap; and at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles being configured to form an engagement structure and latch together under the influence of the magnetic field ([0198], chain together).
As to claim 41, wherein the magnetic field strength between the individual magnetically polarizable particles is greater than 500 kA/m ([0071]).
As to claim 49, wherein at least one surface of at least one braking component adjoining the braking gap is at least partially non-smooth and has elevations and/or depressions configured to reinforce an engagement with the particles ([0038]; [0090]).
As to claim 50, wherein a magnetic field strength greater than 150 kA/m can be generated in the braking gap ([0071]).
As to claim 52, wherein a minimum gap height of the braking gap between the braking components is greater than twice ([0042]) the maximum transverse extension perpendicular to the maximum diameter of the magnetically polarizable particles in the braking gap.
As to claim 55, wherein at least 25% of the magnetically polarizable particles have a maximum diameter and/or maximum transverse extension of at least 10 pm ([0040]).
As to claim 57, further comprising a load sensor and/or a force sensor ([0069]).
As to claim 58, further comprising at least one position sensor ([0069]).
As to claim 59, further comprising a control unit (27) configured for controlling the electrical coil unit.
As to claim 60, wherein the two brake components are pivotable relative to one another and/or are continuously rotatable relative to one another ([0074])
As to claim 61, wherein one brake component has an inner component (2), the other component has an outer component (3), and the outer component at least partially surrounds the inner component radially (as shown in Figure 3).
As to claim 62, wherein the inner component is coupled to an axle unit ([0002], lines 7-9).
As to claim 66, wherein the braking gap completely surrounds the inner component and the braking gap is configured as a circumferential annular gap (gap 5 surrounds component 2 annularly as shown in Figures 1 and 3).
As to claim 68, wherein the two brake components are at least partially linearly movable relative to each other (as shown in Figures 4 and 5).
As to claim 69, further comprising at least one rotary body (11) arranged in a gap portion of the braking gap.
As to claim 70, wherein the magnetorheological medium has at least one liquid as a carrier medium in which the magnetically polarizable particles are accommodated, and the magnetically polarizable particles make up between 25 and 50 percent by volume in the receiving space ([0021] describes particles within medium being greater than 20%).
As to claim 71, wherein the magnetorheological medium has at least one gas ([0191]) as the carrier medium surrounding the magnetically polarizable particles, and the magnetically polarizable particles make up between 40 and 90 percent by volume in the receiving space ([0021] describes particles within medium being greater than 20%).
As to claim 72, further comprising an operating element connected to the magnetorheological braking device (Figure 12; [0224]).
As to claim 73, wherein the operating element has a control roller and/or a control button (Figure 13; [0229]), and the magnetorheological braking device is at least partially accommodated inside the control element.
As to claim 74, wherein the operating element has an outer diameter of less than 75 mm ([0008], lines 5-8 describe outer diameter of system at 42mm).
As to claim 76, Battlogg discloses a method for braking relative movements of at least two braking components (2, 3) of a magnetorheological braking device, comprising: providing an electric coil unit (7), and a receiving space (5) with a braking gap formed between the braking components; providing a magnetorheological medium in the receiving space that can be influenced by a magnetic field and has magnetically polarizable particles (19) therein; and generating a magnetic field in the braking gap with the electric coil unit, and under the influence of the magnetic field, forming an engagement structure in the braking gap and wedging magnetically polarizable particles thereon ([0198]; chain together).
As to claim 77, wherein the magnetic field strength between the individual particles is greater than 500 kA/m ([0071]).
Claim(s) 40, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72 and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Battlogg 20180073590. As to claim 40, Battlogg discloses a device with a magnetorheological braking device for braking relative movements, comprising: at least two braking components (2, 3; Figure 2; [0067], lines 1-3); a receiving space (6) with a braking gap being formed between the at least two braking components, containing a magnetorheological medium with magnetically polarizable particles ([0021]; [0043]) that can be influenced by a magnetic field (abstract); at least one core (7) and at least one electric coil unit (18) being configured to generate a controllable magnetic field in the brake gap; and at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles being configured to form an engagement structure and latch together under the influence of the magnetic field ([0021]; interlink particles together).
As to claim 57, further comprising a load sensor and/or a force sensor ([0117]).
As to claim 58, further comprising at least one position sensor (17).
As to claim 59, further comprising a control unit ([0082]-[0083]) configured for controlling the electrical coil unit.
As to claim 60, wherein the two brake components are pivotable relative to one another and/or are continuously rotatable relative to one another (abstract)
As to claim 61, wherein one brake component has an inner component (2), the other component has an outer component (3), and the outer component at least partially surrounds the inner component radially (as shown in Figure 2).
As to claim 62, wherein the inner component is coupled to an axle unit (abstract).
As to claim 63, wherein the electrical coil unit is wound radially or axially around the core (Figure 4; 18).
As to claim 64, wherein the core has at least one radially projecting arm (21, 22, 23) around which at least one winding of the electrical coil unit is wound (as shown in Figure 4).
As to claim 65, wherein the core has a plurality of radially outwardly extending arms and intermediate sections (35) between the arms, the arms are made of a material with a higher magnetic permeability relative to the magnetic permeability of the intermediate sections, and a ratio of the magnetic permeability of an arm to a magnetic permeability of an intermediate section is greater than 100 (based on 35 being an empty space, it would be obvious for the arm permeability to be greater than 100 over 35 permeability).
As to claim 66, wherein the braking gap (6) completely surrounds the inner component and the braking gap is configured as a circumferential annular gap (as shown in Figure 4).
As to claim 67, wherein at least one brake component (2) has a star contour (as shown in Figure 4) which projects towards the other brake component (3) and which generates/provides a gap height that is variable over the circumference or length of the brake gap (if eccentric component is used with 4; [0157]).
As to claim 72, further comprising an operating element connected to the magnetorheological braking device (Figures 7, 8 and 11).
As to claim 76, Battlogg discloses a method for braking relative movements of at least two braking components (2, 3) of a magnetorheological braking device, comprising: providing an electric coil unit (18), and a receiving space (6) with a braking gap formed between the braking components; providing a magnetorheological medium in the receiving space that can be influenced by a magnetic field and has magnetically polarizable particles ([0021]; [0043]) therein; and generating a magnetic field in the braking gap with the electric coil unit, and under the influence of the magnetic field, forming an engagement structure in the braking gap and wedging magnetically polarizable particles thereon ([0021]; interlink particles together).
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.
Claim(s) 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg ‘508 in view of Kintz et al 20030071238 (IDS cited art) and Wolfrum et al 20130112912. Note: the use of the term “or” indicates that the limitations preceding or following the term doesn’t need to be met entirely and the recitations are in the form of “alternative” embodiments.
Battlogg discloses a device for braking relative movements, comprising: at least two braking components (2, 3); a receiving space (5) with a braking gap between the at least two braking components; a magnetorheological medium with magnetically polarizable particles (19) inside of the braking gap; at least one electric coil unit (7) being configured to generate a controllable magnetic field in the brake gap configured to influence the magnetorheological medium; and a minimum gap height of the braking gap between the braking components ([0052] describes that design options are available); however, Battlogg doesn’t disclose the height as less than five times the mean diameter of the magnetically polarizable particles in the braking gap, and/or Battlog discloses that the magnetically polarizable particles are non-round ([0006], lines 3-5 describe particles as non-uniform); however, Battlogg doesn’t disclose that the particles have a ratio of the maximum diameter to a maximum transverse extent perpendicular thereto is greater than 1.25 or 1.5.
Kintz discloses a magnetorheological device that can be used for brakes and shows that it is well known in the art to provide a gap height ([0029], lines 9-18; 0.08 to 0.75mm) less than five times the mean diameter of the magnetically polarizable particles in the braking gap (6 to 100um).
Wolfrum discloses a magnetorheological device that can be used for brakes and shows that it is well known in the art to provide non-round particles in the device having a ratio of the maximum diameter to a maximum transverse extent perpendicular thereto is greater than 1.25 or 1.5 (ratio is 2 to 50; abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Battlog with minimum gap height less than five times the mean diameter of the particles in view of Kintz to avoid slipping between particles causing magnetic output interruption and reducing wear between particles.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Battlog with a diameter to transverse particle ratio as recited in view of Wolfrum to provide a stronger magnetic response behavior during operation of device.
Claim(s) 42-48, 51, 53, 54, 56 and 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battlogg ‘508 in view of Kintz et al 20030071238 (IDS cited art) and Wolfrum et al 20130112912. Battlogg discloses a minimum gap height (via 5) and non-round particles ([0006], lines 3-5), but doesn’t disclose the limitations as recited in the above claims pertaining to gap size, particle size and structure and particle concentration as recited.
As to claim 42, Kintz shows that it is well known in the art to provide a magnetorheological device that can be used for braking with a minimum gap height of the braking gap ([0029], lines 9-18; 0.08 to 0.75mm) between the braking components is less than five times a mean diameter of a typical magnetically polarizable particle (6 to 100 um) in the braking gap.
As to claim 43, Wolfrum discloses magnetically polarizable particles are non-round particles and a ratio of the largest diameter the particles to the largest transverse extent perpendicular thereto is greater than 1.25 or 1.5 (2 to 50).
As to claim 44, Kintz and Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles are configured to latch together over a large area under the influence of the magnetic field (as shown in Figure 6 in Kintz and Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 45, Kintz and Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles are configured to latch together under the influence of the magnetic field at two or more locations spaced apart from one another (as shown in Figure 6 in Kintz and Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 46, Kintz and Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have at least one trough section (as shown in Figure 6 in Kintz and Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 47, Kintz and Wolfrum disclose wherein at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have an angled structural section (as shown in Figure 6 in Kintz and Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 48, Kintz and Wolfrum disclose wherein: at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have a projection or edge portion; at least some of the magnetically polarizable particles have a recess or trough portion; and the projection or edge portion of at least one particle interlocks with the recess or trough portion of another particle (as shown in Figure 6 in Kintz and Figure 2 in Wolfrum).
As to claim 51, Kintz discloses wherein a minimum gap height of the braking gap between the braking components ([0029], lines 9-18; 0.08 to 0.75mm) is smaller than five times the largest diameter (6 to 100 um) of the magnetically polarizable particles in the braking gap.
As to claim 53, Wolfrum discloses wherein at least 25% of the magnetically polarizable particles have a ratio of maximum diameter to maximum transverse extension greater than 1.25 (2 to 50).
As to claim 54, Wolfrum discloses wherein at least 50% of the magnetically polarizable particles have a ratio of maximum diameter to maximum transverse extension greater than 1.25 (2 to 50).
As to claim 56, Kintz discloses wherein at least 25% of the magnetically polarizable particles have a maximum diameter of at least 30 um (6 to 100 um).
As to claim 78, Kintz discloses wherein the particle concentration in the brake gap is greater than 40% ([0039], 5 to 50%).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Battlog with magnetorheological device pertaining to gap size, particle size and structure and particle concentration as recited in view of Kintz and Wolfrum to avoid slipping between particles causing magnetic output interruption, reducing wear between particles and to provide a stronger magnetic response behavior during operation of device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Ulicny et al 20060033069 discloses magnetorhelogical composition and shows that it is well known in the art to provide magnetic particles having a diameter ratio greater than 1.5 or a ratio 1 to 1.5.
-The corresponding PCT office action has been considered and the examiner agrees that the prior art cited meets the limitations of present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TISHA D LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-7093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30am to 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
Tdl
/TISHA D LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 February 21, 2026