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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/31/25.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull [US 2011/0050444] in view of Blevins et al [U.S. 4,331,953].
For claim 1, the safety-notification system taught by Stull includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed one or more signaling devices is met by the RF or infrared transmitter capable of transmitting a signal (Claim 1), and 2) the claimed one or more notification devices is met by the visual alarm/warning device (Claim 10), each associated with an equipment operator on a worksite (Claim 1: the warning indicator is turned on alerting the driver/operator), wherein each signaling device is for associating with at least one of the one or more notification devices, and each notification device is for associating with at least one of the one or more signaling devices (one-to-one relationship between the worker and equipment operator in Figure 1; also, claim 2 mentions the transmitter may be programmable), wherein each signaling device comprises a transmitter for wirelessly transmitting a targeted signal directly to the at least one of the one or more notification devices associated therewith (Claim 9: comprises of an electronic radio frequency or infrared transmitter; claim 1: that is capable of transmitting a signal over a viable distance), for generating a safety hazard related alarm to the corresponding equipment operator (Claim 1: a visual and audible warning indicator). However, there is no mention of a trigger mechanism located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle and functionally coupled to the transmitter for triggering the wireless transmission of the targeted signal.
Trigger mechanisms have been used in alarm devices for some time. And they have also been used in hazardous working locations as seen in Blevins. In Blevins, each worker carries a transmitter (Nos. 10 and 52) that can be kept in a receiver console (No. 40) when not in use. The worker can take the transmitter unit to a designated work area (Col. 7, Lns. 37-38). If the worker experiences some difficulty while in a hazardous working area, he can press the alarm button (No. 76) that will then actuate an audible or visual alarm on the console (Col. 7, Lns. 43-48).
The Blevins reference shows that signaling the transmitter in a work area need not be constant. It can also be left up to the worker themselves in order to signal a problem in the area. One obvious advantage of this configuration is that a transmitter that does not signal constantly would not drain the battery unnecessarily. The signal would be transmitted only when the worker activates its button. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a button in the transmitter device of Stull for the purpose of saving battery energy thereby prolonging the life of the transmitter unit.
The Stull reference does mention the transmitter can be attached to a device or equipment (Paragraph 9), such as surveying equipment or a smaller vehicle working within the proximity of a larger vehicle. Figure 1 of Stull depicts the worker operating a jackhammer or similar equipment, and jackhammers have handles for the worker to operate them properly. And one obvious location of the transmitter to attach to a jackhammer is its handle. Furthermore, claim 3 states that the transmitter can be built into a housing that can be clipped or pinned onto an article of clothing or device. As the handle of a device is one viable location to attach this housing, this is considered one obvious location to place the transmitter of Stull in order to enable easy access to the transmitter.
For claim 2, the trigger mechanism (No. 76) of Blevins is a button.
For claim 6, the claimed receiver is met by the receiver (Paragraph 7: radio or infrared receiver) of Stull for receiving the signal originating from the signaling device (See Fig. 1) associated therewith, and a visual indication (Claim 10: visual alarm/warning device) for notifying the equipment operator of the receipt of the targeted signal originating from the signaling device associated therewith (Paragraph 7: which when it receives the signal from the pocket transmitter an alarm system mounted inside the driver/operator compartment will alert the driver/operator of the presence of the transmitter; Claim 1: such that when the radio frequency or infrared transmitter is within proximity of the antenna receiver/drivable heavy equipment, machinery, truck, or vehicle the warning indicator is turned on alerting the driver/operator).
For claim 7, the Stull reference also mentions an audible notification to the equipment operator (Claims 1 and 10).
For claim 8, the term “device” found in Stull encompasses a broad range of tools found on a worksite or construction site. A shovel may obviously be one of these tools.
For claim 9, as the transmitter of Stull must be used outdoors, it would be beneficial to ensure the transmitter can work in many different types of weather conditions. The signaling device being weather resistant is not considered a patentable innovation therefor.
For claim 10, the transmitter and receiver of Stull may operate in radio frequencies (Paragraphs 6 and 7 and Claim 1).
For claim 19, the part for coupling to a handle of a hand tool (Paragraph 9: surveying equipment) for a user, and for associating with a notification device associated with a moving equipment (Paragraph 9: larger vehicle) taught by Stull includes the following claimed subject matter, as noted, 1) the claimed transmitter is met by the radio frequency or infrared transmitter (Claim 1) for wirelessly transmitting a targeted signal directly to a first notification device (Claim 1: visual and audible warning indicator) associated with a moving equipment, for generating safety hazard related alarms on the moving equipment, wherein the first notification device associates the safety hazard related alarms with the user (Claim 12: an audible and visual warning device which is activated when the radio frequency or infrared receiver receives a signal from the transmitter). However, there is no mention of a trigger mechanism located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle and functionally coupled to the transmitter for triggering the wireless transmission of the targeted signal.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above.
For claim 20, the trigger mechanism (No. 76) of Blevins is a button.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull in view of Blevins et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang et al [US 2015/0289308].
For claims 11 and 12, neither the Stull nor the Blevins references include or teach a button for pairing and unpairing to associate the signaling devices with at least one or more notification devices.
Electronics have had pairing and unpairing capabilities for many years. And Figures 1 and 2 of Kang depicts at least one slave device (No. 200) being paired with at least one master device (No. 100). The slave device even has an unpairing button that allows a slave device to stop reconnection to the master device. The system may even use Bluetooth and radio communication (Paragraph 5).
The obvious advantage of the Kang reference is that it allows a user to voluntarily connect or disconnect a slave device to and from its master device. This allows the communication system to be easily reconfigurable. And the Stull reference may need easy reconfiguration depending on how many workers and equipment operators are needed at any given time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the transmitter and receiver of Stull to be paired and unpaired for the purpose of providing an easily configurable system.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull in view of Blevins et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shanley [US 2018/0122218].
For claim 13, neither the Stull nor the Blevins reference include or teach a logging unit to record information relating to targeted signals and broadcast signals.
Logging units have been used in alarm systems as seen in the reference taught by Shanley. The Shanley reference relates to a proximity alarm system for a worker operating in the vicinity of a moving machine (Abstract) that comprises a machine unit for mounting on the moving machine and a worker unit to be carried about the person of the worker. An electric field extends outwardly from the machine to interact with a pick-up sensor on the worker unit to sound an audible alarm to the worker. One important aspect of the Shanley reference is a logger unit (No. 41) connected to a personal computer (No. 43). This logger unit is in communication with the worker unit (No. 31) and the machine unit (No. 20).
The logger unit of Shanley is seen as a useful embodiment of the invention (Paragraph 9). By having a logger unit with accessible memory, it will be possible to keep a record of the alarm conditions over time as well as a record of the individual machine and worker units, their settings and which machines or workers those individual units relate to. And the Stull reference also pertains to individual units that may be attached to workers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a logger unit in the system of Stull for the purpose of keeping a record of alarm conditions if such information is needed over time.
Claims 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull in view of Blevins et al and Kang et al.
For claim 14, the method taught by Stull includes the following claimed steps, as noted, 1) the claimed transmitting a targeted signal from a signaling device is achieved using the radio transmitter (Paragraph 6) from the person proximity warning system directly to a notification device for generating a safety hazard related alarm to the equipment operator (Claim 12: an audible and visual warning device which is activated when the radio frequency or infrared receiver receives a signal from the transmitter). However, there is not mention of a trigger mechanism located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle and functionally coupled to the transmitter for triggering the wireless transmission of the targeted signal and receiving triggering from the trigger mechanism.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 1 above. Also, there is no mention of associating the signaling device of the field worker with a notification device of an equipment operator.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 11 above.
For claim 16, the Stull reference is ostensibly meant to be used with a number of field workers. A plurality of field workers may be associated with a notification device. Furthermore, Figure 2 of Kang depicts a plurality of slave devices being associated with a master device.
For claim 17, the Stull reference also mentions an audible notification to the equipment operator (Claims 1 and 10).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stull in view of Blevins et al and Kang et al as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Shanley.
For claim 18, the three references mentioned above do not mention a step of logging the occurrence of the targeted signal.
The claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons and rationale as is mentioned in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Claims 3-5 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not fully teach or suggest a safety-notification system comprising a combination of signaling devices associated with a field worker comprising a transmitter to transmit a targeted signal and notification devices associated with an equipment operator comprising a receiver to receive the targeted signal in order to activate a visual indicator of the notification device wherein the signaling device can also transmit a broadcast signal to all of a plurality of notification devices to indicate that a site-wide shutdown is occurring. Proximity warning devices such as Holmes et al [US 2007/0268155] are meant to automatically shut-down a construction vehicle if a collision is imminent; however, this is not a transmitter of a signaling device transmitting a broadcast signal to all notification devices in the area to indicate a site-wide shutdown and alerting the equipment operator visually of the broadcast signal.
Response to Arguments
Argument 1:
“In Response to Arguments, the Examiner states that ‘[a] mere possibility is exactly what is needed to prove the Applicant's claimed invention is obvious.’
Applicant respectfully disagrees.
MPEP Section 2112 states that ‘[t]he express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.’
The Examiner acknowledges that ‘there is no mention of a trigger mechanism located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle and functionally coupled to the transmitter for triggering the wireless transmission of the targeted signal.’ Therefore, the Examiner has to establish the obviousness based on inherency.
However, in re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581-82, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981), the Court clearly states (emphasis added):
Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. [Citations omitted.] If, however, the disclosure is sufficient to show that the natural result flowing from the operation as taught would result in the performance of the questioned function, it seems to be well settled that the disclosure should be regarded as sufficient.
MPEP Section 2112, IV states (emphasis in original):
The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1534, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (reversed rejection because inherency was based on what would result due to optimization of conditions, not what was necessarily present in the prior art); In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581-82, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981). Also, "[a]n invitation to investigate is not an inherent disclosure" where a prior art reference "discloses no more than a broad genus of potential applications of its discoveries." Metabolite Labs., Inc. v. Lab.Corp. of Am. Holdings, 370 F.3d 1354, 1367, 71 USPQ2d 1081, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that "[a] prior art reference that discloses a genus still does not inherently disclose all species within that broad category" but must be examined to see if a disclosure of the claimed species has been made or whether the prior art reference merely invites further experimentation to find the species).
"In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Exparte Levy,
17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original)....
Therefore, a mere possibility is NOT sufficient for establishing obviousness, because "the fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic".
As the Examiner fails to provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art, Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's reasoning regarding Applicant's claimed limitation "a trigger mechanism located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle and functionally coupled to the transmitter for triggering the wireless transmission of the targeted signal" is not only a mere possibility, but also a mere speculation or assumption.
It has been well established that the examiner has to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
For example, MPEP Section 2142 clearly states (emphasis added):
During patent examination and reexamination, the concept of prima facie obviousness establishes the framework for the obviousness determination and the burdens the parties face. Under this framework, the patent examiner must first set forth a prima facie case, supported by evidence, showing why the claims at issue would have been obvious in light of the prior art.
The examiner bears the initial burden of using facts and reasoning to establish a prima facie conclusion of obviousness.
As neither Stull nor Blevins teaches Applicant's claimed limitation "a trigger mechanism located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle", the Examiner's reasoning in the rejection of claim 1 is at best a mere speculation or assumption.
In Ex parte Cooper, Appeal No. 2018-005477, the PTAB cites In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) and states (emphasis added): '[t]he Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not ... resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies" in the cited references.'
In Exparte BRADLY HUNTER, Appeal 2019-002282, the PTAB states (emphasis added): 'the Examiner's finding that brackets 52 function as clamps that would allow for angular adjustment of leg braces 54 appears to be based on speculation. Patentability determinations "should be based on evidence rather than on mere speculation or conjecture." Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., 464 F. 3d 1286, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2006).'
In University of Strathclydev. Clear-Vu Lighting, Case 2020-2243, Nov. 4, 2021, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals determines that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not find all claim limitations. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals states (emphasis added):
"Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of fact." OSI Pharms., 939 F.3d at 1382 (quoting In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). An obviousness determination generally requires a finding that "all claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art," PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2014); cf Koninklijke Philips N. V. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330, 1337- 38 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the common knowledge of a skilled artisan can be used to supply a missing limitation in some circumstances), and "that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine or modify the teachings in the prior art and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so," OSI Pharms., 939 F.3d at 1382 (quoting Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Broad Inst., Inc., 903 F.3d 1286, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Whether the prior art discloses a claim limitation, whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify or combine teachings in the prior art, and whether she would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so are questions of fact. Tech. Consumer Prods., Inc. v. Lighting Sci. Grp. Corp., 955 F.3d 16, 22 (Fed. Cir.
OSI Pharm., 939 F.3d at 1382.
Applicant respectfully submits that, while "[w]hether the prior art discloses a claim limitation [e.g., Applicant's claimed limitation "a trigger mechanism located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle and functionally coupled to the transmitter for triggering the wireless transmission of the targeted signal"], whether a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify or combine teachings in the prior art, and whether she would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so are questions of fact", the Examiner's obviousness determination does not meet the requirement of "a finding that "all claimed limitations are disclosed in the prior art", nor "that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine or modify the teachings in the prior art and would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so".”
Argument 2:
“Even if the Examiner's reasoning meets the above-cited legal requirements (which Applicant has promptly denied herein), the Examiner's reasoning does not show that Stull and Blevins, alone or in combination, disclose Applicant's claimed limitation "a trigger mechanism located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle and functionally coupled to the transmitter for triggering the wireless transmission of the targeted signal".
As analyzed in Applicant's response to the previous Office Action, Applicant's claim 1 does not merely recite that the trigger mechanism is on the handle. Rather, Applicant's claim 1 limits the location of the trigger mechanism to be "located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle" (emphasis added).
In Response to Arguments, the Examiner interprets the term "adjacent" as '[t]he word "adjacent" can mean "being close, near, or contiguous"'. Applicant agrees. Thus, Applicant's claimed limitation "a trigger mechanism located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle" may be construed as "a trigger mechanism located close, near, or contiguous to a hand-grasp area of the handle. In other words, the trigger mechanism is NOT within hand-grasp area of the handle (and rather, located close, near, or contiguous to the hand-grasp area of the handle).
Applicant notes that such a location limitation provides several advantages:
ease of operation: as the trigger mechanism is "located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle", the field worker can easily reach the trigger mechanism to trigger the transmission of the targeted signal and cause alarm to the equipment operator;
prompt alarm and increased safety: the ease of operation leads to prompt alarm to the equipment operator and increases the safety of the field worker;
avoiding accidental triggering of the alarm: locating the trigger mechanism adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle avoids accidental triggering of the alarm.
In the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner acknowledges that "there is no mention of a trigger mechanism located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle and functionally coupled to the transmitter for triggering the wireless transmission of the targeted signal." However, the Examiner considers:
"The Stull reference does mention the transmitter can be attached to a device or equipment (Paragraph 9), such as surveying equipment or a smaller vehicle working with the proximity of a larger vehicle. Figure 1 of Stull depicts the worker operating a jackhammer or similar equipment, and jackhammers have handles for the worker to operate them properly. And one obvious location of the transmitter to attach to of a jackhammer is its handle. Furthermore, claim 3 states that the transmitter can be built into a housing that ped or pinned onto an article of clothing or device. As the handle of a device is one viable location to attach this housing, this is considered an obvious location to
place the transmitter of Stull in order to enable easy access to the transmitter."
The Examiner's above-cited reasoning at best leads to a speculation or assumption that the transmitter is on the handle. However, neither Stull nor Blevins teaches that the trigger mechanism is located adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle, as recited in Applicant's claim 1.
Therefore, Applicant's claim 1 is not obvious over Stull and Blevins, alone or in combination, and is allowable.”
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Response to Argument 1:
The Stull reference plainly teaches a transmitter that can be attached to a device or equipment (Paragraph 9). The Stull reference also teaches the transmitter built into a housing that can be clipped or pinned to an article of clothing or device (Claim 3). The lone figure of Stull also reveals a worker having the transmitter using a jackhammer, ostensibly having a handle; said jackhammer being one device or piece of equipment that the reference recites may have the housing clipped to or pinned to.
The Examiner has also recognized the Blevins reference in the same field of art as the Stull reference wherein a device is used to protect a worker from hazardous working conditions that allows the worker to voluntarily activate the transmitter, and has presented a clear rationale as to why this is beneficial in the rejection of claim 1 above.
These are not “possibilities” or “probabilities” or a “speculation” or an “assumption”. This is the Examiner’s interpretation of subject matter clearly recited in the prior art to arrive at the rejection above.
The above rejection stands.
Response to Argument 2:
Firstly, line 2 of the Applicant’s claim 1 clearly recites “one or more signaling devices each on a handle of a tool”. As claim 1 also states that the signaling device comprises both the transmitter and the trigger mechanism, this is certainly claimed language that recites the trigger mechanism on the handle of the tool. Therefore, it appears that the Applicant’s own claim language counteracts their argument above.
Furthermore, the Applicant makes much of the fact that the trigger mechanism is located “adjacent a hand-grasp area of the handle” as opposed to being “on a handle”, and it appears that the Applicant continues to cling to a needlessly narrow interpretation of “adjacent” to serve their own arguments.
Notwithstanding the clear error the Applicant made regarding the interpretation of their own claim language above, the Examiner has merely interpreted the word “adjacent” to mean the mechanism to be located near, close, or contiguous an area of the handle of the tool recited in their claim. And the Stull reference clearly states in Paragraph 9 that the transmitter can be attached to a device or equipment in addition to being built into a housing that can be clipped or pinned onto an article of clothing or device (Claim 3). Moreover, the transmitting device (No. 52) having an alarm button (No. 76) of Blevins is of a size comparable to a standard walkie-talkie that can be held by a person or clipped to their belt “without an excess amount of weight having to be carried around with the worker while performing his job function”. This means that the trigger mechanism can be located on the clothing of the worker performing their job function. The Examiner, therefore, has to ask: How is this not adjacent to the hand-grasp area of the handle of a tool? The Stull reference plainly shows a jackhammer as a tool. And the housing of the transmitter may also be attached to the device or equipment, in this case a tool, or the clothing of the worker. Isn’t this near or close to the hand-grasp area of a tool? The worker is near or close to the equipment. Therefore, their clothing is near to close to the handle of whatever tool they are using. Furthermore, the Stull reference also teaches the housing may be clipped, pinned, or attached to the device itself. This is certainly one example of the signaling device being located adjacent to a hand-grasp area of the handle and therefore the above rejection stands.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT
1/22/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689