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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings received on 3/9/2024 are accepted for examination purposes.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,954,379. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant application claims 1-20 are fully encompassed in and generic compared to conflicting claims 1-5 and 7-13 of US Patent No. 11,954,379.
Instant Application 18/600,686
US Patent No. 11,954,379
1. A method comprising: determining, by a processor, a location of a printing device when printing a print job;
determining, by the processor, environmental conditions in which the printing device operated when printing the print job at the determined location;
determining, by the processor, an environmental adjustment factor for the printing device based on the determined environmental conditions; and
adjusting, by the processor, a predicted print material usage of the printing device in printing the print job, based on the determined environmental adjustment factor.
1. A method comprising: determining, by a processor, a location of a printing device when printing a print job;
determining, by the processor, that a likelihood the printing device was exposed to outside ambient environmental conditions at the determined location is lower than a threshold;
in response to determining that the likelihood is lower than the threshold, specifying, by the processor, environmental conditions in which the printing device operated when printing the print job as assumed controlled indoor environmental conditions;
determining, by the processor, an environmental adjustment factor for the printing device based on the determined environmental conditions; and
adjusting, by the processor, a predicted print material usage of the printing device in printing the print job, based on the determined environmental adjustment factor.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the processor is to cause the printing device to perform a print material usage-related action based on a remaining print material supply of the printing device calculated using the adjusted predicted print material usage.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the processor is to cause the printing device to perform a print material usage-related action based on a remaining print material supply of the printing device calculated using the adjusted predicted print material usage.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: repeating determining the environmental conditions and determining the environmental adjustment factor and adjusting the predicted print material usage, each of a plurality of times the printing device prints a new print job.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: repeating specifying the environmental conditions and determining the environmental adjustment factor and adjusting the predicted print material usage, each of a plurality of times the printing device prints a new print job.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the location of the printing device comprises: determining the location of the printing device by looking up an identifier of the printing device within a geolocation database mapping identifiers to geographic locations.
Program claim 15.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the location of the printing device comprises: determining the location of the printing device by looking up an identifier of the printing device within a geolocation database mapping identifiers to geographic locations.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the location of the printing device comprises: determining the location of the printing device by comparing an identifier of the printing device with identifiers of other devices having known locations.
Program claim 16.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the location of the printing device comprises: determining the location of the printing device by comparing an identifier of the printing device with identifiers of other devices having known locations.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device comprises: looking up the determined environmental conditions within a table to determine the environmental adjustment factor.
Program claim 17.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device comprises: looking up the determined environmental conditions within a table to determine the environmental adjustment factor; applying a plurality of rules to the determined environmental conditions to determine the environmental adjustment factor; or determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device in a machine learning manner based on the determined environmental conditions.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device comprises:
applying a plurality of rules to the determined environmental conditions to determine the environmental adjustment factor.
Program claim 18.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device comprises: looking up the determined environmental conditions within a table to determine the environmental adjustment factor; applying a plurality of rules to the determined environmental conditions to determine the environmental adjustment factor; or determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device in a machine learning manner based on the determined environmental conditions.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device comprises:
determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device in a machine learning manner based on the determined environmental conditions.
Program claim 19.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device comprises: looking up the determined environmental conditions within a table to determine the environmental adjustment factor; applying a plurality of rules to the determined environmental conditions to determine the environmental adjustment factor; or determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device in a machine learning manner based on the determined environmental conditions.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the environmental adjustment factor indicates how much more or less print material is used by the printing device when operating in the determined environmental conditions.
Program claim 20.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the environmental adjustment factor indicates how much more or less print material is used by the printing device when operating in the determined environmental conditions.
10. A printing device comprising: printing hardware to print a print job using print material; and hardware logic to: determine a predicted print material usage in printing of the print job;
transmit the predicted print material usage;
responsively receive an adjusted predicted print material usage in printing of the print job based on environmental conditions in which the printing device operated when printing the print job at a determined location of the printing device when printing the print job; and
subtract the adjusted predicted print material usage from a value corresponding to a remaining current supply of the print material available to the printing device.
9. A printing device comprising: printing hardware to print a print job using print material; and hardware logic to: determine a predicted print material usage in printing of the print job;
transmit the predicted print material usage;
responsively receive an adjusted predicted print material usage in printing of the print job based on environmental conditions in which the printing device operated when printing the print job at a determined location of the printing device when printing the print job,
the environmental conditions specified as assumed indoor environmental conditions responsive to a determination that a likelihood the printing device was exposed to outside ambient environmental conditions at the determined location being lower than a threshold; and
subtract the adjusted predicted print material usage from a value corresponding to a remaining current supply of the print material available to the printing device.
11. The printing device of claim 10, wherein the hardware logic is further to: perform a print material usage-related action responsive to the value corresponding to the remaining current supply of the print material available to the printing device dropping to less than a threshold.
10. The printing device of claim 9, wherein the hardware logic is further to: perform a print material usage-related action responsive to the value corresponding to the remaining current supply of the print material available to the printing device dropping to less than a threshold.
12. The printing device of claim 10, wherein the hardware logic is to transmit to a computing device an identifier of the printing device with the predicted print material usage, the location of the printing device determined by the computing device based on the identifier of the printing device.
11. The printing device of claim 9, wherein the hardware logic is to transmit to a computing device an identifier of the printing device with the predicted print material usage, the location of the printing device determined by the computing device based on the identifier of the printing device.
13. A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing program code executable by a computing device to perform processing comprising: receiving, from a printing device, a predicted print material usage of the printing device when printing a print job;
determining a location of the printing device when printing the print job;
determining environmental conditions in which the printing device operated when printing the print job at the determined location;
determining an environment adjustment factor for the printing device based on the determined environmental conditions;
adjusting a predicted print material usage of the printing device when printing the print job, based on the determined environmental adjustment factor; and
transmitting, to the printing device, the adjusted predicted print material usage of the printing device in printing the print job.
12. A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing program code executable by a computing device to perform processing comprising: receiving, from a printing device, a predicted print material usage of the printing device when printing a print job;
determining a location of the printing device when printing the print job;
determining that a likelihood the printing device was exposed to outside ambient environmental conditions at the determined location is lower than a threshold;
in response to determining that the likelihood is lower than the threshold, specifying environmental conditions in which the printing device operated when printing the print job as assumed controlled indoor environmental conditions;
determining an environment adjustment factor for the printing device based on the determined environmental conditions;
adjusting a predicted print material usage of the printing device when printing the print job, based on the determined environmental adjustment factor; and
transmitting, to the printing device, the adjusted predicted print material usage of the printing device in printing the print job.
14. The non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium of claim 13, wherein an identifier of the printing device is received from the printing device along with the predicted print material usage, and wherein the location of the printing device is determined based on the received identifier of the printing device.
13. The non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium of claim 12, wherein an identifier of the printing device is received from the printing device along with the predicted print material usage, and wherein the location of the printing device is determined based on the received identifier of the printing device.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9-11, 13, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rodriguez (US-6,560,417).
As to Claim 1, Rodriguez teaches ‘A method comprising: determining, by a processor, a location of a printing device when printing a print job [col 1, lines 49-55, col 4, lines 24-34 – determining an electrophotographic area of a printing device]; determining, by the processor, environmental conditions in which the printing device operated when printing the print job at the determined location [col 4, lines 24-38 – estimating a toner usage that varies on the environment in which a printer is located results in a non-linear amount of toner transfer]; determining, by the processor, an environmental adjustment factor for the printing device based on the determined environmental conditions [col 6, lines 20-57 – printer may be modified based on the measured environmental conditions]; and adjusting, by the processor, a predicted print material usage of the printing device in printing the print job, based on the determined environmental adjustment factor [col 1, lines 11-14 – modifying a printing process in response to environmental conditions within the electrophotographic area of a printer]’.
As to Claim 2, Rodriguez teaches ‘wherein the processor is to cause the printing device to perform a print material usage-related action based on a remaining print material supply of the printing device calculated using the adjusted predicted print material usage [col 5, lines 34-47 – referencing the CPWC (corrected PWC) to determine the toner usage referencing the PWC (pulse width count), temperature and/or RH (relative humidity) values within a SRE (statistical regression equation) or LUT that corrects that corrects the PWC based on temperature and/or RH and determines toner usage in a single process, thus determining a remaining value]’.
As to Claim 3, Rodriguez teaches ‘further comprising: repeating determining the environmental conditions and determining the environmental adjustment factor and adjusting the predicted print material usage, each of a plurality of times the printing device prints a new print job [Fig 2 (230), col 5, lines 48-56 – if it determined the end of the print job generated has not been reached, returning until completion]’.
As to Claims 6 and 17, Rodriguez teaches ‘wherein determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device comprises: looking up the determined environmental conditions within a table to determine the environmental adjustment factor [col 5, lines 5-33 – determining a corrected PWC (“CPWC”) based on the environmental factors by referencing the PWC, temperature and/or RH for the page and applying these values to a look up table (“LUT”), while utilizing the LUT for common PWCs]’.
As to Claims 7 and 18, Rodriguez teaches ‘wherein determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device comprises: applying a plurality of rules to the determined environmental conditions to determine the environmental adjustment factor [col 5, lines 5-33 – determining a corrected PWC (“CPWC”) based on the environmental factors by referencing the PWC, temperature and/or RH for the page and using statistical regression equation for uncommon PWCs]’.
As to Claims 9 and 20, Rodriguez teaches ‘wherein the environmental adjustment factor indicates how much more or less print material is used by the printing device when operating in the determined environmental conditions [col 5, lines 5-33, col 6, lines 26-57 – a combination of LUT and SRE may be incorporated in such a way as to utilize the LUT for common PWCs, thus saving system resources and increasing print speed, increase accuracy of toner estimation, and controlling the amount of toner transferred to the print medium]’.
As to Claim 10, Rodriguez teaches ‘A printing device comprising: printing hardware to print a print job using print material [Fig 1, col 3, lines 29-39 – printing device for printing a print job]; and hardware logic to: determine a predicted print material usage in printing of the print job; transmit the predicted print material usage [Fig 2, col 1, line 65-col 2, line 11, col 4, lines 16-23 – estimating toner usage using pulse width count (“PWC”)]; responsively receive an adjusted predicted print material usage in printing of the print job based on environmental conditions in which the printing device operated when printing the print job at a determined location of the printing device when printing the print job; and subtract the adjusted predicted print material usage from a value corresponding to a remaining current supply of the print material available to the printing device [Fig 3, col 1, lines 38-45, col 3, lines 40-62, col 5, lines 5-33, col 6, lines 20-57 – the system may include an ambient condition sensor operable to measure and/or infer environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, RG, barometric pressure, etc.), where the environmental conditions within the area where toner is transferred to the print medium, may be relatively different as compared to other areas outside or within the printing device including heat produced by various components in the printing device (e.g., motors, fuser, laser, etc.) and the EP process may be modified based on the measured environmental conditions by controlling the amount of toner transferred to the print medium]’.
As to Claim 11, Rodriguez teaches ‘wherein the hardware logic is further to: perform a print material usage-related action responsive to the value corresponding to the remaining current supply of the print material available to the printing device dropping to less than a threshold [col 5, lines 34-47, col 6, lines 26-57 – a toner remining value may be determined as well, based on a predetermined starting amount of toner and the toner usage, the toner remaining may be calculated and stored within memory including PWC, temperature, RG, CPWC, and pixel count values, where the amount of toner transferred to the print medium is controlled by modulating the bias voltage of the developer and the charge on the print roller]’.
As to Claim 13, Rodriguez teaches ‘A non-transitory computer-readable data storage medium storing program code executable by a computing device to perform processing comprising: receiving, from a printing device, a predicted print material usage of the printing device when printing a print job [Fig 2, col 1, line 65-col 2, line 11, col 4, lines 16-23 – estimating toner usage using pulse width count (“PWC”)]; determining a location of the printing device when printing the print job [col 1, lines 49-55, col 4, lines 24-34 – determining an electrophotographic area of a printing device]; determining environmental conditions in which the printing device operated when printing the print job at the determined location [col 4, lines 24-38 – estimating a toner usage that varies on the environment in which a printer is located results in a non-linear amount of toner transfer]; determining an environment adjustment factor for the printing device based on the determined environmental conditions [col 6, lines 20-57 – printer may be modified based on the measured environmental conditions]; adjusting a predicted print material usage of the printing device when printing the print job, based on the determined environmental adjustment factor; and transmitting, to the printing device, the adjusted predicted print material usage of the printing device in printing the print job [col 1, lines 11-14 – receiving a modified printing process in response to environmental conditions within the electrophotographic area of a printer]’.
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) 4, 5, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Najari et al. (US-2017/0262243).
As to Claims 4 and 15, Rodriguez teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claims 1 and 13, respectively. Rodriguez does not disclose expressly ‘wherein determining the location of the printing device comprises: determining the location of the printing device by looking up an identifier of the printing device within a geolocation database mapping identifiers to geographic locations’.
Najari teaches ‘wherein determining the location of the printing device comprises: determining the location of the printing device by looking up an identifier of the printing device within a geolocation database mapping identifiers to geographic locations [Fig 4, par 0023-0024 – GPS coordinates and/or an address or other geolocation information (symbolized by the map) is used to determine the geolocation of the printer]’.
Rodriguez and Najari are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include determining a geolocation of a printer, as taught by Najari. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing connectivity to open up new possibilities for user experiences and operations of the devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Najari with Rodriguez to obtain the invention as specified in claims 4 and 15.
As to Claims 5 and 16, Najari teaches ‘wherein determining the location of the printing device comprises: determining the location of the printing device by comparing an identifier of the printing device with identifiers of other devices having known locations [Fig 4, par 0024 – mobile device determining the geolocation of the printer by using information from GPS satellites and the GPS receiver of the mobile device]’.
Rodriguez and Najari are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include determining a geolocation of a printer, as taught by Najari. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing connectivity to open up new possibilities for user experiences and operations of the devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Najari with Rodriguez to obtain the invention as specified in claims 5 and 16.
As to Claim 12, Najari in the proposed combination of Rodriguez teaches ‘wherein the hardware logic is to transmit to a computing device an identifier of the printing device with the predicted print material usage, the location of the printing device determined by the computing device based on the identifier of the printing device [par 0023-0024, 0043 – printer transmits to mobile device using wireless connection a serial number of the printer, where GPS coordinates and/or an address or other geolocation information is used to determine the geolocation of the printer]’.
Rodriguez and Najari are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include determining a geolocation of a printer, as taught by Najari. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing connectivity to open up new possibilities for user experiences and operations of the devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Najari with Rodriguez to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
As to Claim 14, Najari in the proposed combination of Rodriguez teaches ‘wherein an identifier of the printing device is received from the printing device along with the predicted print material usage, and wherein the location of the printing device is determined based on the received identifier of the printing device [par 0023-0024, 0043 – printer transmits to mobile device using wireless connection a serial number of the printer, where GPS coordinates and/or an address or other geolocation information is used to determine the geolocation of the printer]’.
Rodriguez and Najari are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include determining a geolocation of a printer, as taught by Najari. The motivation for doing so would have been to allowing connectivity to open up new possibilities for user experiences and operations of the devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Najari with Rodriguez to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez in view of Shinkai (US-2020/0338907).
As to Claims 8 and 19, Rodriguez teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claims 1 and 13, respectively. Rodriguez does not disclose expressly ‘wherein determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device comprises: determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device in a machine learning manner based on the determined environmental conditions’.
Shinkai teaches ‘wherein determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device comprises: determining the environmental adjustment factor for the printing device in a machine learning manner based on the determined environmental conditions [par 0041, 0046-0049 – determining an adjustment level by machine learning in accordance with an actual use state of the print apparatus]’.
Rodriguez and Shinkai are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely digital image data printing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include machine learning, as taught by Shinkai. The motivation for doing so would have been to estimating an adjustment interval with high accuracy taking a use state into consideration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shinkai with Rodriguez to obtain the invention as specified in claims 8 and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Patent No. 6,560,417
b. US Publication No. 2017/0262243
c. US Publication No. 2020/0338907
d. US Patent No. 11,954,379
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681