DETAILED ACTION
The amendments filed 11/10/2025 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application and are discussed on the merits below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “claim 1 requires ‘a cable extending outward from the housing, the cable adapted to electrically connect the electronic device to an unmanned ground vehicle,’” “there is no disclosure, or suggestion to combine the wired control from Braut with the wireless operator control unit of Phillips,” and that “such a modification appears to be an exercise in impermissible hindsight” in page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated by Applicant, the claim recites “a cable extending outward from the housing, the cable adapted to electrically connect the electronic device to an unmanned ground vehicle” and Phillips teaches that “Communication between the remote vehicle 10 and the operator control unit 20 is accomplished via a communication link 5045 that preferably includes an Ethernet cable” in [0372] and Fig. 61 which reads on the claims as written. The ethernet cable (applicant’s “cable”) connects the control unit 20 (applicant’s electronic device) to the remote vehicle 10 (applicant’s unmanned ground vehicle). Furthermore, the cable being connected to a robot is taught by Braut. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control via cable of a robot as disclosed by Braut by adding the control via cable of an unmanned ground vehicle as taught by Phillips.
Applicant further asserts “Phillips only mentions an ‘Unmanned Ground vehicle’ in a single instance” to further argue that “there is no disclosure, or suggestion to combine the wired control from Braut with the wireless operator control unit of Phillips to simply select the application of a UGV)” in page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks. However, Examiner also disagrees with this argument. Though the term “unmanned ground vehicle” may only appear once, the Figures show a UGV (see at least Fig. 1, 13, 58, and 61). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the control via cable of a robot as disclosed by Braut by adding the control via cable of an unmanned ground vehicle as taught by Phillips. The robot disclosed by Braut could be any robot such as a toy car or the like. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a tether that allows communications without a potential for jamming and blocking wireless communications (see at least Phillips [0080]) and to allow a trail to be left by the robot such that it can be followed (see at least [0301]).
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are found not persuasive and the rejections under 35 USC §103 are maintained as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the objections to the claims, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the objections. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC §103, amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the rejections. The rejections under 35 USC §103 are maintained as outlined below.
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(s) is/are:
“enabling assembly” in claim 1. Applicant’s disclosure recites “enabling assembly 102” in paragraph [0039] and Fig. 3.
“operating assembly” in claim 1. Applicant’s disclosure recites “operating assembly 103” in paragraph [0039] and Fig. 2.
“emergency component” in claim 2. Applicant’s disclosure recites “emergency component 104” in paragraph [0054] and Fig. 2.
“auxiliary components” in claim 9. Applicant’s disclosure recites “auxiliary components 106” in paragraph [0057] and Fig. 2.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braut (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0255704 A1) in view of Phillips et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0027590 A1; hereinafter Phillips).
Regarding claim 1, Braut discloses:
An electronic device (robot controller, see at least abstract) comprising: a portable body (portable robot controller, see at least [0002]) comprising a housing (see at least Figs 1-2) and a cable extending outward from the housing (see at least Fig. 3),;
an enabling assembly comprising an enabling component at least partially arranged outside the housing, the enabling assembly adapted to provide an enabling signal to the unmanned ground vehicle via the cable in response to the enabling component being operated (safety switch operating means to be used to be held in a run position and robot movement stops if safety switch operating means is not held in the run position, see at least [0013] and [0051]; and Fig. 5); and
an operating assembly at least partially arranged outside the housing and adapted to, in response to reception of the enabling signal, provide an operation signal to the unmanned ground vehicle to control an operation of the unmanned ground vehicle (control means 2 and 3 are joysticks, see at least [0046], velocity and robot movement is determined by deflection of joystick from its neutral position, see at least [0052]; and Figs 1-2 and 4).
Braut does not explicitly disclose:
unmanned ground vehicle
However, Phillips teaches:
the cable adapted to electrically connect the electronic device to an unmanned ground vehicle (communication between remote vehicle 10 and operator control unit 20 is accomplished via a communication link that includes an ethernet cable, see at least [0372]; an embodiment is for small unmanned ground vehicle, see at least [0368])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut by adding the unmanned ground vehicle taught by Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to provide a tool for a person to perform operations at a safe, remote distance from sites of potential danger or hazard to human beings… such as bomb and ordnance disposal, in which the remote vehicle is remotely navigated to the proximity of the explosives or other potentially dangerous target by an operator located hundred of meters away, so that investigation and disarmament can take place at a safe distance” (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
an emergency component (emergency stop button 4, see at least [0048]) at least partially arranged outside the housing (see at least reference number 4 in figures 4 and 5) and adapted to, in response to being pressed, provide an emergency signal to the unmanned ground vehicle to stop the operation of the unmanned ground vehicle (emergency stop 4 is arranged as a push button on the panel, see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
a display arranged on the housing (display 5, see at least [0033] and Fig. 1) and adapted to at least present parameters and/or status of the unmanned ground vehicle (displays what measures are permitted at each moment such as current position and orientation, see at least [0033]-[0035])
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above but Braut does not disclose:
the cable comprises: an Ethernet cable to allow the operation signal to be transmitted
However, Phillips teaches:
the cable comprises: an Ethernet cable to allow the operation signal to be transmitted (communication between remote vehicle 10 and operator control unit 20 is accomplished via a communication link that includes an ethernet cable, see at least [0327])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Barut by adding the ethernet cable taught by Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “low EMC footprint, noise/bounce tolerant, modularity, can uniformly read/control each endpoint” and because “an Ethernet network can handle far node-to-far node communication” (see [0178]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
the operating assembly comprises: a joystick adapted to generate the operation signal (control means such as joysticks, see at least [0032]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
the joystick and the display are arranged on a first side of the housing, and the enabling component is arranged on a second side of the housing opposite to the first side (display and joysticks on the top and live handle switch on the bottom, see at least fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
the housing comprises: a handheld part arranged on the second side to facilitate holding of the electronic device (left and right handgrips 32L and 32R, see at least [0048] and Fig. 5), and wherein the enabling component is arranged adjacent to the handheld part to allow the user to press the enabling component while holding the electronic device with one hand (see grips 32L and 32R adjacent to live handle switches 11L and 11R in fig. 5).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
auxiliary components at least partially arranged outside the housing and adapted to generate an adjustment signal to adjust the parameters of the unmanned ground vehicle and/or to adjust a presentation present on the display (switch means 6 and 7 arranged as pushbuttons and may activate fixed functions or programmable functions and when activated, displays to the operator information about what measures are permitted at each moment, see at least [0033] and Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
the electronic device is a standardized teach pendant (teach pendant unit TPU, see at least [0002])
Regarding claim 11, Braut discloses:
obtaining an enabling signal from an enabling assembly of an electronic device (safety switch operating means to be used to be held in a run position and robot movement stops if safety switch operating means is not held in the run position, see at least [0013] and [0051]; and Fig. 5);
obtaining an operation signal from an operating assembly of the electronic device (control means 2 and 3 are joysticks, see at least [0046], velocity and robot movement is determined by deflection of joystick from its neutral position, see at least [0052]; and Figs 1-2 and 4); and
controlling an operation of the unmanned ground vehicle according to the operation signal in response to reception of the enabling signal (press live handle operating switch to enable TPU and move the joystick for robot to move in indicated direction, see at least steps 60-62 in Fig. 6).
Braut does not explicitly disclose:
Unmanned ground vehicle
However, Phillips teaches
A method of controlling an unmanned ground vehicle (communication between remote vehicle 10 and operator control unit 20 is accomplished via a communication link that includes an ethernet cable, see at least [0372]; an embodiment is for small unmanned ground vehicle, see at least [0368])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut by adding the unmanned ground vehicle taught by Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order “to provide a tool for a person to perform operations at a safe, remote distance from sites of potential danger or hazard to human beings… such as bomb and ordnance disposal, in which the remote vehicle is remotely navigated to the proximity of the explosives or other potentially dangerous target by an operator located hundred of meters away, so that investigation and disarmament can take place at a safe distance” (see [0003]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
obtaining an emergency signal from the emergency component of the electronic device (emergency stop button 4, see at least [0048]); and stopping the operation of the unmanned ground vehicle in response to reception of the emergency signal (emergency stop 4 is arranged as a push button on the panel, see at least [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
obtaining an adjustment signal; and adjusting corresponding one or more of parameters according to the adjustment signal (switch means 6 and 7 arranged as pushbuttons and may activate fixed functions or programmable functions and when activated, displays to the operator information about what measures are permitted at each moment, see at least [0033] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
transmitting information involving parameters and/or status of the unmanned ground vehicle to the electronic device (displays what measures are permitted at each moment such as current position, orientation, and status, see at least [0033]-[0040]; cable for transfer of data communication, see at least [0047])
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
A computer readable storage medium having computer readable program instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a control module, cause the control module to perform the method of claim 11 (program stored on computer readable medium that make the computer perform the method, see at least [0079])
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
obtaining an emergency signal from the emergency component of the electronic device (emergency stop button 4, see at least [0048]); and stopping the operation of the unmanned ground vehicle in response to reception of the emergency signal (emergency stop 4 is arranged as a push button on the panel, see at least [0033])
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
obtaining an adjustment signal; and adjusting corresponding one or more of parameters according to the adjustment signal (switch means 6 and 7 arranged as pushbuttons and may activate fixed functions or programmable functions and when activated, displays to the operator information about what measures are permitted at each moment, see at least [0033] and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further discloses:
transmitting information involving parameters and/or status of the unmanned ground vehicle to the electronic device (displays what measures are permitted at each moment such as current position, orientation, and status, see at least [0033]-[0040]; cable for transfer of data communication, see at least [0047])
Claims 4, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braut in view of Phillips as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Abdallah et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0017002 A1; hereinafter Abdallah).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further teaches:
the enabling assembly is adapted to provide the enabling signal comprising a pair of check signals for dual-channel transmission Safety switch is operated at same time as operating the joystick, so long as the safety switch operating means is held by the operator, the robot can be moved, see at least [0051]) *Examiner sets forth that though Braut does not explicitly disclose the term “dual-channel transmission,” the requirement of two controls reads on the “dual-channel transmission”
Furthermore, Phillips teaches:
the enabling assembly is adapted to provide the enabling signal comprising a pair of check signals for dual-channel transmission (network can include a duplex communication network with an Ethernet network and RS485 network, see at least [0174])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut by adding the communication network taught by Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “because it provides two networks, including an Ethernet network capable of communicating from one far node to another, thus bypassing the token ring configuration of the RS485 network which requires passage of data through intermediate nodes” (see [0174]).
Furthermore, Abdallah teaches:
a pair of check signals for dual-channel transmission (redundant processing and signal propagation with regular integrity checks between two or more redundant channels, see at least [0010])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut and the communication network taught by Phillips by adding the checks between redundant channels taught by Abdallah with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to thereby maintain safe interaction between the object, the operator, and the surrounding environment” and allow “e-stop action [which] may be implemented in a fail-safe manner through the described software and hardware architecture” (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further teaches:
obtaining a pair of check signals of the enabling signal from the enabling assembly of the electronic device; and comparing the pair of the check signals to verify a validity of the enabling signal. Safety switch is operated at same time as operating the joystick, so long as the safety switch operating means is held by the operator, the robot can be moved, see at least [0051]) *Examiner sets forth that though Braut does not explicitly disclose the term “dual-channel transmission,” the requirement of two controls reads on the “dual-channel transmission”
Furthermore, Phillips teaches:
obtaining a pair of check signals of the enabling signal from the enabling assembly of the electronic device (network can include a duplex communication network with an Ethernet network and RS485 network, see at least [0174])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut by adding the communication network taught by Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “because it provides two networks, including an Ethernet network capable of communicating from one far node to another, thus bypassing the token ring configuration of the RS485 network which requires passage of data through intermediate nodes” (see [0174]).
Furthermore, Abdallah teaches:
comparing the pair of the check signals to verify a validity of the enabling signal (redundant processing and signal propagation with regular integrity checks between two or more redundant channels, see at least [0010])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut and the communication network taught by Phillips by adding the checks between redundant channels taught by Abdallah with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to thereby maintain safe interaction between the object, the operator, and the surrounding environment” and allow “e-stop action [which] may be implemented in a fail-safe manner through the described software and hardware architecture” (see [0010]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Braut and Phillips teaches the elements above and Braut further teaches:
obtaining a pair of check signals of the enabling signal from the enabling assembly of the electronic device; and comparing the pair of the check signals to verify a validity of the enabling signal Safety switch is operated at same time as operating the joystick, so long as the safety switch operating means is held by the operator, the robot can be moved, see at least [0051]) *Examiner sets forth that though Braut does not explicitly disclose the term “dual-channel transmission,” the requirement of two controls reads on the “dual-channel transmission”
Furthermore, Phillips teaches:
obtaining a pair of check signals of the enabling signal from the enabling assembly of the electronic device (network can include a duplex communication network with an Ethernet network and RS485 network, see at least [0174])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut by adding the communication network taught by Phillips with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “because it provides two networks, including an Ethernet network capable of communicating from one far node to another, thus bypassing the token ring configuration of the RS485 network which requires passage of data through intermediate nodes” (see [0174]).
Furthermore, Abdallah teaches:
comparing the pair of the check signals to verify a validity of the enabling signal (redundant processing and signal propagation with regular integrity checks between two or more redundant channels, see at least [0010])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the portable robot controller disclosed by Braut and the communication network taught by Phillips by adding the checks between redundant channels taught by Abdallah with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification “to thereby maintain safe interaction between the object, the operator, and the surrounding environment” and allow “e-stop action [which] may be implemented in a fail-safe manner through the described software and hardware architecture” (see [0010]).
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 HANA LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3969. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/DALE W HILGENDORF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662