Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 10/23/2025. Claims 1-8, 10-47 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 15, 16, 20, 21, 27, 40, and 43 have been amended, claim 9 has been canceled, and new claim 47 has been added. Claims 1-8, 10-47 have been examined.
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 1-5, 7-11, and 13-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwirn (Pat. No.: 11,900,788 B1) in view of Marien (Pub. No.: 2017/0213429 A1) and Burklund (Pub. No.: 2011/0289247 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Zwirn discloses the claimed apparatus (fig. x: 110 discloses as a control module of a fire alarm control panel), comprising:
an addressable printed circuit board (its inherent the fire alarm control panel has a PCB) configured to electrically connect and assign an address of the addressable PCB to a non-addressable PCB of a remote device (col. 8, lines 45-67 to col. 9, lines 1-15 disclose the FACP to assign addresses to addressable and non-addressable devices).
Zwirn does not explicitly disclose a housing configured to retain at least a portion of the addressable PCB and to physically connect to a receiving device, and the PCB assigns an address to a non-addressable PCB.
Zwirn does not specifically show the constructional detail of the system. However, Marien discloses it has been known for a fire alarm system to have a housing (fig. 7a: 704) configured to retain at least a portion of the addressable PCB and to physically connect to a receiving device (fig. 7a: 706).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the apparatus of Zwirn to have a housing which retains a portion of a PCB and physically connects to a receiving device, as taught by Marien.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to use a known configuration for mounting a fire alarm monitoring and alarm devices in a building.
In addition, Burklund discloses it has been known for a computing device to have an addressable circuit board to be configured to assign an address to a non-addressable circuit board (¶0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the apparatus of Zwirn circuit board assign an address to a non-addressable circuit board, as taught by Burklund.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to reduce the coast of the device, as taught by Burklund (¶0003).
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the address is dynamically assignable by the addressable PCB based on user settings (Zwirn col. 8, lines 61-67 disclose the device is assigned a specific address).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1.
Zwirn, Marien and Burklund do not explicitly disclose the addressable PCB comprises switches for manually setting the address by a user.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for an addressable PCB to have switches for a user to manually set an address.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the PCB of Zwirn address to be manually set by a user.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to use one of a finite way an address may be set for a device.
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the remote device is selected from the group consisting of a fire notification device and a fire detection device (Zwirn fig. 3 and col. 7, lines 58-63).
5) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the remote device comprises multiple sub-devices comprising two or more items selected from the group consisting of one or more fire notification devices and one or more fire detection devices (Zwirn fig. 3 and col. 7, lines 58-63).
6) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein fire alarm control panel (FACP) wiring is connected to the non-addressable PCB (col. 8, lines 45-67 to col. 9, lines 1-15).
7) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claims 1, wherein the receiving device is an interface plate for coupling a junction box to the remote device comprising the non-addressable PCB (Marien fig. 7a: 702), and wherein the interface plate comprises:
a backside configured to connect to the junction box; and
a frontside configured to receive the addressable PCB having the address and electrically connect the addressable PCB to the non-addressable PCB of the remote device to assign the address that is assigned to the addressable PCB to the non-addressable PCB of the remote device (Burklund fig. 2).
8) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the apparatus is comprised in a fire alarm system having a fire alarm control panel (FACP) separate from the apparatus, and wherein the apparatus further comprises a memory, wherein the remote device further comprises a memory, and wherein the memory of the apparatus and the memory of the remote device are both configured to store the address to provide redundancy (Marien fig. 2a shows the system controller 14 (i.e., fire alarm control panel) and fire system device 30(i.e., apparatus) and they are separate from one another).
9) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 10), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 10, wherein the memory of the apparatus is comprised in an element selected from the group consisting of the addressable PCB and an interface plate configured to interface with a junction box (Marien fig. 7a).
10) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 12), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 12, wherein the translation processor is comprised in an element selected from the group consisting of the addressable PCB and an interface plate configured to interface with a junction box (Marien fig. 7a).
11) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 12), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 12, further comprising:
a first device protocol portion connected to the translation processor and configured to provide the communications between the addressable PCB of the translation processor and a fire alarm control panel (FACP) using the first device protocol; and a second device protocol portion connected to the translation processor and configured to provide the communications between the addressable PCB of the translation processor and the FACP using the second device protocol (Zwirn fig. 3 show the devices are a fire alarm control panel and fire alarm control devices).
12) In regard to claim 15 (dependent on claim 14), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 14, wherein the translation processor, the first device protocol portion, and the second device protocol portion are comprised in an element selected from the group consisting of the addressable PCB and an interface plate configured to interface with a junction box (Marien fig. 7a).
13) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 12), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 12, wherein the remote device comprises multiple sub-devices comprising two or more items selected from the group consisting of one or more fire notification devices and one or more fire detection devices, and wherein the translation processor selectively translates communications received from each of the multiple sub-devices into the at least one of the at least two different device protocols (Zwirn fig. 3 show the devices are a fire alarm control panel and fire alarm control devices).
14) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 12), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 12.
Zwirn, Marien and Burklund do not explicitly disclose the translation processor is configured to selectively translate communications between a first device protocol device configured to output communication in the first device protocol and a second device protocol panel configured to process communications in the second device protocol.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system processor to translate communication via two different protocols.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the processor of Zwirn to communicate via two different protocols.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to allow a processor to communicate with a plurality of devices.
15) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 12), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 12,
Zwirn, Marien and Burklund do not explicitly disclose the translation processor is configured to selectively translate communications between a second device protocol device configured to output communication in the second device protocol and a first device protocol panel configured to process communications in the first device protocol.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system processor to translate communication via two different protocols.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the processor of Zwirn to communicate via two different protocols.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to allow a processor to communicate with a plurality of devices.
16) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the receiving device is an expansion module having the addressable PCB integrated therein and configured to be connected between a junction box and the remote device comprising the non-addressable PCB (Marien fig. 7a).
17) In regard to claim 20 (dependent on claim 19), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 19, wherein the expansion module comprises:
a backside configured to connect to the junction box; and a front side configured to connect the addressable PCB of the expansion module to the non-addressable PCB of the remote device to assign the address, that is assigned to the addressable PCB of the expansion module to the non-addressable PCB of the remote device (Burklund fig. 2).
18) In regard to claim 21 (dependent on claim 19), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 19, wherein the apparatus is comprised in a fire alarm system having a fire alarm control panel (FACP) separate from the apparatus, and wherein the apparatus further comprises a memory, wherein the remote device further comprises a memory, and wherein the memory of the apparatus and the memory of the remote device are both configured to store the address to provide redundancy (Marien fig. 2a shows the system controller 14 (i.e., fire alarm control panel) and fire system device 30(i.e., apparatus) and they are separate from one another).
19) In regard to claim 22 (dependent on claim 21), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 21, wherein the memory of the apparatus is comprised in an element selected from the group consisting of the addressable PCB and the expansion module (Zwirn col. 8 lines 61-67).
20) In regard to claim 23 (dependent on claim 19), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 19.
Zwirn, Marien and Burklund do not explicitly disclose the translation processor configured to selectively translate communications from the non-addressable PCB of the remote device into at least one of at least two different device protocols including a first device protocol and a second device protocol.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system processor to translate communication via two different protocols.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the processor of Zwirn to communicate via two different protocols.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to allow a processor to communicate with a plurality of devices.
21) In regard to claim 24 (dependent on claim 23), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 23, wherein the translation processor is comprised in an element selected from the group consisting of the addressable PCB and the expansion module (Zwirn col. 8 lines 61-67).
22) In regard to claim 25 (dependent on claim 24), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 24, further comprising:
a first device protocol portion connected to the translation processor and configured to provide the communications between the addressable PCB of the translation processor and a fire alarm control panel (FACP) using the first device protocol; and a second device protocol portion connected to the translation processor and configured to provide the communications between the addressable PCB of the translation processor and the FACP using the second device protocol (Zwirn fig. 3 show the devices are a fire alarm control panel and fire alarm control devices).
23) In regard to claim 26 (dependent on claim 25), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 25, wherein the translation processor, the first device protocol portion, and the second device protocol portion are comprised in an element selected from the group consisting of the addressable PCB and the expansion module (Zwirn col. 8 lines 61-67).
24) In regard to claim 27 (dependent on claim 23), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 23, wherein the remote device comprises multiple sub-devices comprising two or more items selected from the group consisting of one or more fire notification devices and one or more fire detection devices, and wherein the translation processor is configured to selectively translate communications received from each of the multiple sub-devices into the at least one of at least two different device protocols (Zwirn fig. 3 show the devices are a fire alarm control panel and fire alarm control devices).
25) In regard to claim 28 (dependent on claim 23), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 23.
Zwirn, Marien and Burklund do not explicitly disclose the translation processor is configured to selectively translate communications between a first device protocol device configured to output communication in the first device protocol and a second device protocol panel configured to process communications in the second device protocol.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system processor to translate communication via two different protocols.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the processor of Zwirn to communicate via two different protocols.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to allow a processor to communicate with a plurality of devices.
26) In regard to claim 29 (dependent on claim 23), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 23.
Zwirn, Marien and Burklund do not explicitly disclose the translation processor is configured to selectively translate communications between a second device protocol device configured to output communication in the second device protocol and a first device protocol panel configured to process communications in the first device protocol.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system processor to translate communication via two different protocols.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the processor of Zwirn to communicate via two different protocols.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to allow a processor to communicate with a plurality of devices.
27) In regard to claim 30 (dependent on claim 19), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 19, configuring an expansion module on-board power supply to power the expansion module and the remote device (Zwirn col. 9, lines 53-65).
28) In regard to claim 31 (dependent on claim 19), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 19.
Zwirn, Marien and Burklund does not explicitly disclose an expansion module on-board sensor to provide at least one of redundant and supplemental sensing for the remote device.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system to utilize sensors with at least one redundant sensor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the apparatus of Zwirn to include a redundant sensor.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to avoid false alarms and quickly identify emergency situations.
29) In regard to claim 32 (dependent on claim 19), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 19, configuring an expansion module on-board wireless interface to provide wireless communications between the remote device and an element of a communication path between the remote device and another device (Zwirn col. 7, lines 46-52).
30) In regard to claim 33 (dependent on claim 19), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 19, further comprising an expansion module on-board processor and expansion module on-board wireless interface to send a multicast signal to other wireless interfaces of other expansion modules to provide joint alarm notification (Zwirn col. 7, lines 46-52).
31) In regard to claim 34 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the receiving device is the remote device (Marien fig.7a).
32) In regard to claim 35 (dependent on claim 34), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 34, wherein the housing comprises an aperture configured to receive the addressable PCB at least partially retained within the portion of the housing and connect the addressable PCB to the non-addressable PCB comprised in the remote device (Marien fig.7a).
33) In regard to claim 36 (dependent on claim 34), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 34.
Zwirn, Marien and Burklund do not explicitly disclose a translation processor configured to selectively translate communications from the non-addressable PCB of the remote device into at least one of at least two different device protocols including a first device protocol and a second device protocol.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system processor to translate communication via two different protocols.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the processor of Zwirn to communicate via two different protocols.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to allow a processor to communicate with a plurality of devices.
34) In regard to claim 37 (dependent on claim 36), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 36, wherein the translation processor is comprised in the addressable PCB (Zwirn col. 8 lines 61-67).
35) In regard to claim 38 (dependent on claim 36), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 36, further comprising:
a first device protocol portion connected to the translation processor and configured to provide the communications between the addressable PCB of the translation processor and a fire alarm control panel (FACP) using the first device protocol; and a second device protocol portion connected to the translation processor and configured to provide the communications between the addressable PCB of the translation processor and the FACP using the second device protocol (Zwirn fig. 3 show the devices are a fire alarm control panel and fire alarm control devices).
36) In regard to claim 39 (dependent on claim 38), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 38, wherein the translation processor, the first device protocol portion, and the second device protocol portion are comprised in the addressable PCB (Zwirn col. 8 lines 61-67).
37) In regard to claim 40 (dependent on claim 36), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 36, wherein the remote device comprises multiple sub-devices comprising two or more items selected from the group consisting of one or more fire notification devices and one or more fire detection devices, and wherein the translation processor selectively translates communications received from each of the multiple sub-devices into the at least one of the at least two different device protocols (Zwirn fig. 3 show the devices are a fire alarm control panel and fire alarm control devices).
38) In regard to claim 41 (dependent on claim 36), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 36, wherein the translation processor is configured to selectively translate communications between a first device protocol device configured to output communication in the first device protocol and a second device protocol panel configured to process communications in the second device protocol (Zwirn fig. 3 show the devices are a fire alarm control panel and fire alarm control devices).
39) In regard to claim 42 (dependent on claim 36), Zwirn and Marien further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 36.
Zwirn and Marien do not explicitly disclose the translation processor is configured to selectively translate communications between a second device protocol device configured to output communication in the second device protocol and a first device protocol panel configured to process communications in the first device protocol.
However, official notice is taken by the examiner that both the concept and advantage is known for a monitoring system processor to translate communication via two different protocols.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the processor of Zwirn to communicate via two different protocols.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to allow a processor to communicate with a plurality of devices.
40) In regard to claim 43, claim 43 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
41) In regard to claim 44 (dependent on claim 43), claim 44 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 8 and the references applied.
42) In regard to claim 45 (dependent on claim 43), claim 45 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 19 and the references applied.
43) In regard to claim 46 (dependent on claim 43), claim 46 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 34 and the references applied.
44) In regard to claim 47 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1, wherein the addressable PCB is configured to electrically connect and assign an address that is assigned to the addressable PCB to a non-addressable PCB of a remote device by transferring the address assigned to the addressable PCB to the non-addressable PCB of the remote device (fig. 2 and ¶0015-¶0016).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwirn (Pat. No.: 11,900,788 B1) in view of Marien (Pub. No.: 2017/0213429 A1) and Burklund (Pub. No.: 2011/0289247 A1) and further in view of Penney (Pub. No.: 2004/0112114 A1).
1) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund further disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1.
Zwirn, Marien and Burklund do not explicitly disclose a light pipe configured to receive light, wherein the addressable PCB is configured to perform a self-test based on the light received through the light pipe.
However, Penney discloses it is known fire system device to include a light pipe configured to receive light, wherein the addressable PCB is configured to perform a self-test based on the light received through the light pipe (¶0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the apparatus of Zwirn to have a light pipe for self-testing, as taught by Penney.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to allow a user to initiate a test mode on the device, as taught by Penney (¶0006).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zwirn (Pat. No.: 11,900,788 B1) in view of Marien (Pub. No.: 2017/0213429 A1) and Burklund (Pub. No.: 2011/0289247 A1) and further in view of Knight (Pub. No.: 2021/0006622 A1).
1) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 1), Zwirn, Marien and Burklund disclose the apparatus in accordance with claim 1.
Zwirn, Marien and Burklund do not explicitly disclose a translation processor configured to selectively translate communications from the non-addressable PCB of the remote device into at least one of at least two different device protocols including a first device protocol and a second device protocol.
However, Knight discloses it has been known for an apparatus to have a translation processor configured to selectively translate communications from the non-addressable PCB of the remote device into at least one of at least two different device protocols including a first device protocol and a second device protocol (¶0033 and ¶0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify the processor of Zwirn to communicate via two different protocols.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Zwirn as described above in order to allow a processor to communicate with a plurality of devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims. Furthermore, the well-known in the art statements in the above Office action is taken to be admitted prior art due to applicant failure to traverse the examiner’s official notice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685