DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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:
“height-adjustment mechanism” in claim 1.
“depth-adjustment mechanism” in claim 1.
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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “height-adjustment mechanism” is interpreted to mean any device capable of translating the bracket in a direction.
Regarding claim 1, the term “depth-adjustment mechanism” is interpreted to mean any device capable of translating the bracket in a direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "respective mounting bracket " in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "lower end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Lower end” is previously recited in claim 1 but in reference to the first mounting beam.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "upper end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Lower end” is previously recited in claim 1 but in reference to the first mounting beam.
Claims 3-11 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bilge (US Pub. 2022/0290442 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bilge discloses a system for mounting facade panels on a building (Abstract, lines 1-2: “The disclosed invention provides a system and method of installing wall panels unto an existing wall”), the system comprising:
a hanger assembly configured to mount one or more facade panels on a building, the hanger assembly comprising: a first mounting bracket configured to be fixed to a first floor slab of the building (Fig. 1, double tee bracket 60 attaches to floor slab 2) and a second mounting bracket configured to be fixed to a second floor slab, wherein the second floor slab is spaced above the first floor slab (See id. Two floor slabs are shown with brackets attached to each);
a first mounting beam having a lower end coupled to the first mounting bracket and an upper end coupled to the second mounting bracket, wherein the first mounting beam extends between the first floor slab and the second floor slab transverse to the first and second floor slabs (Fig. 1, base support tracks 20), and wherein the first mounting beam is configured to receive the one or more facade panels (Pg. 3, [0052], lines 1-6: “FIG. 8 is used the mount wall panels thereto. A back surface 402 of a wall panel 400 is shown in FIG. 9. The wall panel 400 may be made of wood, stone, fiberglass, glass or a 20 composite material. A wall panel 440 is hung onto a double-L crossmember 100 with R-brackets 120a and 120b”);
a height-adjustment mechanism configured to selectively translate the one or more facade panels up and down relative to the first and second mounting brackets; and a depth-adjustment mechanism coupled to one or both of the first mounting bracket and the second mounting bracket, wherein the depth-adjustment mechanism is configured to selectively translate one or both ends of the first mounting beam outward and inward relative to the respective mounting bracket (Pg. 1, [0008]: “It is another object of the present invention to provide a system and method for easily mounting panels of a facade onto exposed slab edges of existing flooring, while permitting adjustment of the position of the wall panels in three dimensions”).
Regarding claim 2, Bilge discloses wherein the first mounting beam comprises:
a support beam including the lower end operatively coupled to the first mounting bracket and the upper end operatively coupled to the second mounting bracket (Fig. 1, base support track 20 connects to two brackets);
and a sliding plate coupled to a front side of the support beam, such that the sliding plate is configured to be selectively repositioned relative to the support beam, wherein the sliding plate is configured to receive the one or more facade panels (Pg. 1, [0012]: “In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, a system for mounting wall panels to an existing wall, includes a plurality of support assemblies adapted to be secured to the exposed surfaces of floor slab or existing wall; a plurality of sliding support members slidably received in the support tracks and adapted to be fixed therein by fasteners: and a plurality of adjustment support members connected with the sliding support members for assembling a building facade over completed floor slabs”).
Regarding claim 3, Bilge discloses wherein the support beam includes a slot formed in the front side of the support beam, and wherein the sliding plate includes a rearward extending protrusion configured to be slidingly received within the slot to couple the sliding plate to the support beam (Fig. 6, slidable member 80 is received by u-shaped gap 22c, 24c).
Regarding claim 4, Bilge discloses wherein the height-adjustment mechanism is configured to selectively translate the sliding plate up and down relative to the support beam, wherein the one or more facade panels coupled to the sliding plate are translated up and down with the sliding plate (Pg. 2, [0042], lines 13-21: “Sliding along the support track 20 is a plurality of slidable member 80 which are inserted at any point along the track and are then capable of adjusting up or down along the entire length of the combined sections of the support track 20. The sliding support track 20 is configured to retain the upright elongated panel 42 of the adjustable support member 40. The adjustable support member 40 is shown assembled with a plurality of spaced apart parallel crossmembers 300 that span the distance between two adjacent support assemblies 12”).
Regarding claim 5, Bilge discloses wherein the first mounting bracket and the second mounting bracket each comprise a base plate fixed to the respective floor slab and a pair of parallel plates projecting from the base plate to define a receiving channel, wherein the receiving channel is configured to receive the respective end of the first mounting beam (Fig. 2, tee bracket 60 has a plate attached to floor slab 4 with perpendicular plates that receive the vertical support beam).
Regarding claim 11, Bilge discloses a plurality of the hanger assemblies spaced apart from each other across an exterior wall of the building (Pg. 1, [0011]: “It is a further object of the present invention to provide a system and method for easily mounting a system of wall panels to create a building façade which allows for thermal expansion of the wall panels”).
Regarding claim 12, Bilge discloses a method of mounting facade paneling on a building (Abstract, lines 1-2: “The disclosed invention provides a system and method of installing wall panels unto an existing wall”), the method comprising:
fixing a first mounting bracket to a first floor slab (Fig. 1, double tee bracket 60 attaches to floor slab 2) of the building and fixing a second mounting bracket to a second floor slab (Fig. 1, multiple floor slabs are shown) of the building, wherein the second floor slab is spaced above the first floor slab (Fig. 1, floor slab 2 is located above the other floor slab 2);
coupling a lower end of a first mounting beam to the first mounting bracket and an upper end of the first mounting beam to the second mounting bracket, such that the first mounting beam extends between the first floor slab and the second floor slab transverse to the first floor slab and the second floor slab (Fig. 1, double tee bracket connects to base support tracks 20);
and coupling one or more facade panels to the first mounting beam (Pg. 1, [0011]: “It is a further object of the present invention to provide a system and method for easily mounting a system of wall panels to create a building façade which allows for thermal expansion of the wall panels”).
Regarding claim 19, Bilge discloses wherein fixing the first mounting bracket to the first floor slab includes fixing the first mounting bracket to one or more mounting bolts embedded in the first floor slab (Pg. 1, [0012]: “In accordance with an aspect of the present invention, a system for mounting wall panels to an existing wall, includes a plurality of support assemblies adapted to be secured to the exposed surfaces of floor slab or existing wall; a plurality of sliding support members slidably received in the support tracks and adapted to be fixed therein by fasteners: and a plurality of adjustment support members connected with the sliding support members for assembling a building facade over completed floor slabs”).
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) 6, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilge (US Pub. 2022/0290442 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Bilge discloses the claimed invention except for a third mounting bracket configured to be fixed to a third-floor slab spaced above the second-floor slab; and a second mounting beam having a second-beam lower end coupled to the second mounting bracket and a second-beam upper end coupled to the third mounting bracket. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the mounting beam to a third floor slab with additional associated attachment means to accommodate taller buildings, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 20, Bilge discloses the claimed invention except for fixing a third mounting bracket to a third floor slab spaced above the second floor slab; and coupling a second-beam lower end of a second mounting beam to the second mounting bracket and a second-beam upper end of the second mounting beam to the third mounting bracket, such that the second mounting beam extends between the second floor slab and the third floor slab transverse to second and third floor slabs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to extend the mounting beam to a third floor slab with additional associated attachment means to accommodate taller buildings, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim(s) 7-10, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilge (US Pub. 2022/0290442 A1) in view of Durenleau (US Pub. 2018/0245352 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bilge discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Durenleau, similarly drawn to a wall-panel mounting system, wherein the depth-adjustment mechanism comprises a first depth-adjustment mechanism coupled to the upper end of the first mounting beam, and a second depth-adjustment mechanism coupled to the second-beam lower end of the second mounting beam (Pg. 3, [0051], lines 1-5: “Wall panel support mechanism 104 also includes a plurality of adjustment members passing through apertures in top plate 128. In the embodiment of this example, five such adjustment members 132, 134, 136, 138, 140 are shown”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for mounting facade panels on a building of Bilge to include the adjust mechanisms of Durenleau for improved adjustment of the wall panel at multiple locations.
Regarding claim 8, Bilge as modified by Durenleau discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Durenleau, wherein the first depth-adjustment mechanism is configured to selectively translate the upper end of the first mounting beam inward and outward relative to the second mounting bracket, and wherein the second depth-adjustment mechanism is configured to selectively translate the second-beam lower end inward and outward relative to the second mounting bracket (Pg. 4, [0056]: “As a result of the attachment structure of each coupling bracket to an associated parallel member of the corresponding mounting bracket, rotation of each adjustment member relative to the corresponding coupling bracket causes the body portion to move toward or away from the plane defined by the wall mounting portion of the corresponding mounting bracket, and is thereby configured to cause a corresponding region of a mounted wall panel to move toward or away from the wall frame”).
Regarding claim 9, Bilge as modified by Durenleau discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Durenleau, wherein the first depth-adjustment mechanism and the second depth-adjustment mechanism are configured to be adjusted independently of each other (See id. Each bracket has its own adjustment means).
Regarding claim 10, Bilge discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Durenleau, similarly drawn to a wall-panel mounting system, a respective threadless mounting pin coupling the first mounting bracket to the lower end of the first mounting beam and the second mounting bracket to the upper end of the first mounting beam (Pg. 4, [0054]: “More specifically, as seen, for example, in FIGS. 8 and 12, each coupling bracket 142, 144, 146, 148 includes an elongated female-threaded aperture 150 for receiving a male-threaded portion 152 of the corresponding adjustment member, and a coupling bracket 154 extending between the female-threaded aperture and one of the parallel members of the corresponding mounting bracket. In each case, the coupling bracket is attached to the associated parallel member by a pin 156 passing through a circular aperture 158 in the coupling bracket, and also passing through a diagonal, elongated slot 160 in the parallel member. In FIG. 7, the pin associated with the coupling bracket of coupling bracket 148 has been omitted to better show circular aperture 158 and its alignment with slot 160”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for mounting facade panels on a building of Bilge to include the pin of Durenleau for to couple the bracket to the parallel member.
Regarding claim 13, Bilge discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Durenleau, similarly drawn to a wall-panel mounting system, actuating a height-adjustment mechanism of the first mounting beam, wherein the first mounting beam comprises a support beam coupled to the first mounting bracket and the second mounting bracket and a sliding plate slidingly coupled to a front side of the support beam, wherein actuating the height-adjustment mechanism is configured to translate the sliding plate up and down relative to the support beam of the first mounting beam, and wherein the one or more facade panels are coupled to the sliding plate, such that the one or more facade panels are translated up and down with the sliding plate (Pg. 3, [0051]: “Wall panel support mechanism 104 also includes a plurality of adjustment members passing through apertures in top plate 128. In the embodiment of this example, five such adjustment members 132, 134, 136, 138, 140 are shown. In general, as described in more detail below, one of the adjustment members will be used for vertical adjustment of the hook plate, and each of the remaining adjustment members will be used for inward and outward adjustments of the wall panel support mechanism with respect to the various mounting brackets 102. Therefore, in this example where four mounting brackets 102 are used, five adjustment members are shown”).
Regarding claim 14, Bilge as modified by Durenleau discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Durenleau, wherein actuating the height-adjustment mechanism comprises rotating a height-adjustment screw operatively coupled to the sliding plate (See id).
Regarding claim 15, Bilge discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Durenleau, similarly drawn to a wall-panel mounting system, actuating a first depth-adjustment mechanism coupled to the first mounting bracket and the lower end of the first mounting beam, wherein the first depth-adjustment mechanism is configured to selectively translate the lower end of the first mounting beam inward and outward relative to the first mounting bracket (Pg. 3, [0051], lines 1-5: “Wall panel support mechanism 104 also includes a plurality of adjustment members passing through apertures in top plate 128. In the embodiment of this example, five such adjustment members 132, 134, 136, 138, 140 are shown”. Pg. 4, [0056]: “As a result of the attachment structure of each coupling bracket to an associated parallel member of the corresponding mounting bracket, rotation of each adjustment member relative to the corresponding coupling bracket causes the body portion to move toward or away from the plane defined by the wall mounting portion of the corresponding mounting bracket, and is thereby configured to cause a corresponding region of a mounted wall panel to move toward or away from the wall frame”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for mounting facade panels on a building of Bilge to include the adjust mechanisms of Durenleau for improved adjustment of the wall panel at multiple locations.
Regarding claim 16, Bilge as modified by Durenleau discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Durenleau, wherein actuating the first depth-adjustment mechanism comprises rotating a depth-adjustment screw operatively coupled to the lower end of the first mounting beam (Pg. 3, [0051]: “Wall panel support mechanism 104 also includes a plurality of adjustment members passing through apertures in top plate 128. In the embodiment of this example, five such adjustment members 132, 134, 136, 138, 140 are shown. In general, as described in more detail below, one of the adjustment members will be used for vertical adjustment of the hook plate, and each of the remaining adjustment members will be used for inward and outward adjustments of the wall panel support mechanism with respect to the various mounting brackets 102. Therefore, in this example where four mounting brackets 102 are used, five adjustment members are shown”).
Regarding claim 17, Bilge discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Durenleau, similarly drawn to a wall-panel mounting system, actuating a second depth-adjustment mechanism coupled to the second mounting bracket and the upper end of the first mounting beam, wherein the second depth-adjustment mechanism is configured to selectively translate the upper end of the first mounting beam inward and outward relative to the second mounting bracket (Pg. 3, [0051], lines 1-5: “Wall panel support mechanism 104 also includes a plurality of adjustment members passing through apertures in top plate 128. In the embodiment of this example, five such adjustment members 132, 134, 136, 138, 140 are shown”. Pg. 4, [0056]: “As a result of the attachment structure of each coupling bracket to an associated parallel member of the corresponding mounting bracket, rotation of each adjustment member relative to the corresponding coupling bracket causes the body portion to move toward or away from the plane defined by the wall mounting portion of the corresponding mounting bracket, and is thereby configured to cause a corresponding region of a mounted wall panel to move toward or away from the wall frame”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for mounting facade panels on a building of Bilge to include the adjust mechanisms of Durenleau for improved adjustment of the wall panel at multiple locations.
Regarding claim 18, Bilge discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Durenleau, similarly drawn to a wall-panel mounting system, wherein coupling the lower end of the first mounting beam to the first mounting bracket comprises inserting a threadless mounting pin through a first slot formed in the first mounting bracket and through a second slot formed in the first mounting beam (Pg. 4, [0054]: “More specifically, as seen, for example, in FIGS. 8 and 12, each coupling bracket 142, 144, 146, 148 includes an elongated female-threaded aperture 150 for receiving a male-threaded portion 152 of the corresponding adjustment member, and a coupling bracket 154 extending between the female-threaded aperture and one of the parallel members of the corresponding mounting bracket. In each case, the coupling bracket is attached to the associated parallel member by a pin 156 passing through a circular aperture 158 in the coupling bracket, and also passing through a diagonal, elongated slot 160 in the parallel member. In FIG. 7, the pin associated with the coupling bracket of coupling bracket 148 has been omitted to better show circular aperture 158 and its alignment with slot 160”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for mounting facade panels on a building of Bilge to include the pin of Durenleau for to couple the bracket to the parallel member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642