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 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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Swartz (US 2025/0249908 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Swartz discloses a system for remote control of an occupied vehicle (see at least Figure 1B, item 110 | [0058] | [0059] note occupants can be inside and outside the vehicle while it is charging | [0034] note the features, structures, or characteristics described in this specification may be combined in any suitable manner), the system comprising:
at least one external vehicle environmental sensor (see at least Figure 1B, items 111, 113, 115 and 117 | [0060] note cameras and sound detection sensors | [0077]);
a suspect event identification module comprising instructions stored in at least one memory and executable by one or more processors (see at least Figure 1, item 112 | [0059] note vehicle computer | [0050] note any actions described herein may be performed by one or more processors and memory | [0191]) to cause the suspect event identification module to:
determine the occurrence of a suspect event at the occupied vehicle based, at least in part, on data indicative of an audio environment of a surrounding of the occupied vehicle (see at least [0059] note some occupants can be inside the vehicle and others can be outside the vehicle while it is charging | [0060] note the one or more sensors, such as cameras and sound detection sensors, can detect an unauthorized person approaching the vehicle | [0077]); and
a communication module comprising instructions stored in at least one memory and executable by one or more processors (see at least [0050] note any actions described herein may be performed by one or more processors and memory | [0152] note the security processor controls communication | [0191]) to cause the communication module to:
communicate, in response to the determination of the suspect event, an initial signal to a remote device of an operator of the occupied vehicle, the operator outside of the occupied vehicle (see at least Figure 1D, items 116, 142 and 126 | [0059] note occupants can be inside and outside the vehicle while it is charging | [0065] note transmitting a notification to one or more devices associated with the vehicle and the occupants of the vehicle, such as an in-vehicle display, user device(s) and the charging station | [0070] | [0076] note the owner can be away from the vehicle, such as at the charging station or elsewhere | [0078] note the occupants and owner, if present, are alerted via the in-vehicle display and connected user devices).
Regarding claim 2, Swartz discloses wherein the communication module further comprises instructions stored in the at least one memory and executable by the one or more processors to cause the communication module to: receive a response signal communicated from the remote device subsequent to communicating the initial signal, the response signal indicative of at least one corrective action to be performed by at least one component of the occupied vehicle (see at least [0076]).
Regarding claim 8, Swartz discloses wherein the at least one external vehicle environmental sensor comprises at least one external vehicle camera, wherein the initial signal comprises data indicative of an image or video of at least one of the suspect event, the surrounding of the occupied vehicle, or at least one pedestrian associated with the suspect event (see at least [0060] note cameras | [0070] note live video feed showing the threat, which would be the approaching person (which includes the surrounding of the occupied vehicle)).
Regarding claim 10, Swartz discloses wherein the remote device comprises at least one of a key fob, a mobile device, or a personal computer (see at least [0065] | [0076]).
Regarding claim 11, Swartz discloses wherein determining the occurrence of the suspect event at the occupied vehicle further comprises determining that the surrounding of the occupied vehicle is a suspect area (see at least [0077] note sound patterns associated with potential dangers, such as breaking glass, shouting, car alarms, etc.).
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz (US 2025/0249908 A1) in view of Salter (US 11,787,290 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Swartz discloses wherein the at least one external vehicle environmental sensor comprises at least one external vehicle microphone (see at least Figure 1B, items 111, 113, 115 and 117 | [0072] note microphones), and the system further comprises at least one vehicle speaker (see at least [0071] note speakers), and wherein the corrective action comprises at least playing a prerecorded message via the at least one vehicle speaker (see at least [0070-0071] note prerecorded alerts are output via the in-vehicle display, user devices, and charging station).
However, Swartz does not specifically disclose at least one external vehicle speaker; and playing a prerecorded message via the at least one external vehicle speaker, or establishing a two-way communication link between the remote device and the surrounding of the occupied vehicle via the at least one external vehicle speaker and the at least one external vehicle microphone.
It is known for systems to handle situations differently. For example, Salter teaches a system with at least one external vehicle speaker; and that plays a prerecorded message via the at least one external vehicle speaker, or establishes a two-way communication link between a remote device and a surrounding of an occupied vehicle via the at least one external vehicle speaker and at least one external vehicle microphone (see at least Figure 2, items 120 and 122 | col. 2, line 51 – col. 3, line 36 | col. 6, lines 39-67 | col. 9, line 57 – col. 10, line 38 | col. 5, lines 32-37 of Salter | col. 8, lines 33-38 of Salter).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Salter into Swartz. This provides the ability to try and deter the occurrence of the suspect event.
Regarding claim 6, Salter in view of Swartz teach further comprising at least one internal vehicle occupant sensor (see at least [0074] of Swartz | col. 5, lines 32-37 of Salter), and wherein the suspect event identification module further comprises instructions stored in the at least one memory and executable by the one or more processors to cause the suspect event identification module to: determine a status of the occupied vehicle as occupied based at least in part on a signal communicated from the at least one internal vehicle occupant sensor (see at least [0074] of Swartz | col. 5, lines 32-37 of Salter | col. 8, lines 33-38 of Salter), and wherein the initial signal is communicated to the remote device subsequent to determining the status of the occupied vehicle as occupied (see at least col. 10, lines 15-24 of Salter).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz (US 2025/0249908 A1) in view of Sacre (US 2018/0322751 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Swartz discloses wherein the at least one external vehicle environmental sensor comprises at least one external vehicle microphone (see at least Figure 1B, items 111, 113, 115 and 117 | [0072] note microphones) and at least one external vehicle camera (see at least [0060] note cameras | [0076-0077] note cameras), and the system further comprising at least one vehicle speaker (see at least [0070]), and wherein the corrective action comprises establishing a communication link between the remote device and the surrounding of the occupied vehicle via the at least one external vehicle microphone, and the at least one external vehicle camera (see at least [0076]).
However, Swartz does not specifically disclose at least one external vehicle speaker, and wherein the corrective action comprises establishing a two-way communication link between the remote device and the surrounding of the occupied vehicle via the at least one external vehicle speaker, the at least one external vehicle microphone, and the at least one external vehicle camera.
It is known to monitor a system in different ways. For example, Sacre teaches a monitoring system (see at least [0073]) that utilizes at least one external speaker (see at least Figure 1, item 108), and wherein a corrective action comprises establishing a two-way communication link between a remote device (see at least Figure 1, item 114) and the surrounding of a monitored asset (see at least Figure 1, item 101) via the at least one external speaker (see at least Figure 1, item 108), at least one external microphone (see at least Figure 1, item 106), and at least one external camera (see at least Figure 1, item 104).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Sacre into Swartz. This provides the ability to try and deter the occurrence of the suspect event, while also uploading images captured by the camera to the user’s computing device (and/or cloud) to help identify the suspect event.
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz (US 2025/0249908 A1) in view of Golston (US 2018/0251122 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Swartz does not disclose wherein the corrective action comprises at least one of opening a window of the occupied vehicle, unlocking a door of the occupied vehicle, activating a climate control system of the occupied vehicle, or implementing a predetermined setting of the climate control system of the occupied vehicle.
It is known to react to a suspect event in different ways. For example, Golston teaches a system wherein a corrective action comprises at least one of opening a window of the occupied vehicle, unlocking a door of the occupied vehicle, activating a climate control system of the occupied vehicle, or implementing a predetermined setting of the climate control system of the occupied vehicle (see at least [0063] note the system determines the occupant’s status, such as whether or not the occupant appears threatened by a person outside of the vehicle | [0082] note sending a notification and/or streamed video of the vehicle interior to one or more remote devices in a case where the electronic device detects an emergency (e.g., detects extreme fear or distress from an occupant or detects potential harm to the occupant as a result of the person outside of the vehicle, etc.), and additionally or alternatively, may activate the air conditioning, lower the windows, notify emergency services (e.g., 911), and/or stream video to emergency services).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Golston into Swartz. This provides the ability to remotely monitor the occupant while making them as comfortable as possible during a potential emergency.
Regarding claim 9, Swartz in view of Golston teach further comprising at least one internal vehicle camera (see at least [0045] of Swartz note at least one interior and exterior camera), and wherein the initial signal comprises data indicative of an image or video of at least one of an interior of the occupied vehicle or an occupant of the occupied vehicle (see at least [0063] of Golston, note the system determines the occupant’s status, such as whether or not the occupant appears threatened by a person outside of the vehicle | [0082] of Golston, note sending a notification and/or streamed video of the vehicle interior to one or more remote devices in a case where the electronic device detects an emergency (e.g., detects extreme fear or distress from an occupant or detects potential harm to the occupant as a result of the person outside of the vehicle, etc.), and additionally or alternatively, may activate the air conditioning, lower the windows, notify emergency services (e.g., 911), and/or stream video to emergency services).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz (US 2025/0249908 A1) in view of Mai (US 2020/0406860 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Swartz does not specifically disclose wherein the suspect event comprises at least one of a pedestrian observing an occupant of the occupied vehicle, the pedestrian knocking on an exterior surface of the occupied vehicle, or the pedestrian communicating with the occupant of the occupied vehicle.
It is known for a suspect event to be one of a variety of different types of suspect events. For example, Mai teaches a system that determines a suspect event, wherein the suspect event comprises at least one of a pedestrian observing an occupant of an occupied vehicle, the pedestrian knocking on an exterior surface of the occupied vehicle, or the pedestrian communicating with the occupant of the occupied vehicle (see at least [0241] note detecting an approaching person and detecting a person peeping into the vehicle).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Mai into Swartz. This provides a known alternative suspect event that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Swartz’s suspect event while providing predictable results.
Claims 12, 13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz (US 2025/0249908 A1) in view of Golston (US 2018/0251122 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Swartz discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored in at least one memory that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors (see at least [0004] | Figure 1B, item 110 | [0058] | [0059] note occupants can be inside and outside the vehicle while it is charging | [0034] note the features, structures, or characteristics described in this specification may be combined in any suitable manner | [0050] note any actions described herein may be performed by one or more processors and memory | [0152] note the security processor controls communication | [0191]) to carry out steps comprising:
determining a status of a parked vehicle (see at least [0058] note the vehicle may already be parked where it begins to monitor the charging connector | [0073] note while charging and parked),
receiving a signal communicated from at least one external vehicle environmental sensor of the parked vehicle (see at least Figure 1B, items 111, 113, 115 and 117 | [0060] note cameras and sound detection sensors | [0077]);
determining the occurrence of a suspect event at the parked vehicle based, at least in part, on an audio environment of a surrounding of the parked vehicle indicated by the received signal (see at least [0059] note some occupants can be inside the vehicle and others can be outside the vehicle while it is charging | [0060] note the one or more sensors, such as cameras and sound detection sensors, can detect an unauthorized person approaching the vehicle | [0077]); and
communicating, in response to the determination of the suspect event, an initial signal to a remote device of an operator of the parked vehicle, the operator outside of the parked vehicle (see at least Figure 1D, items 116, 142 and 126 | [0059] note occupants can be inside and outside the vehicle while it is charging | [0065] note transmitting a notification to one or more devices associated with the vehicle and the occupants of the vehicle, such as an in-vehicle display, user device(s) and the charging station | [0070] | [0076] note the owner can be away from the vehicle, such as at the charging station or elsewhere | [0078] note the occupants and owner, if present, are alerted via the in-vehicle display and connected user devices).
However, Swartz does not specifically disclose determining a status of a parked vehicle as an occupied vehicle; receiving, in response to the determination of the occupied vehicle, a signal communicated from at least one external vehicle environmental sensor of the parked vehicle.
It is known to react to a suspect event in different ways. For example, Golston teaches a system that determines a status of a parked vehicle as an occupied vehicle; and receives, in response to the determination of the occupied vehicle, a signal communicated from at least one external vehicle environmental sensor of the parked vehicle (see at least [0006] | [0054] | [0067] note the weight sensor may be used to determine the presence of an occupant in the vehicle, and then use sound and image analysis to determine their occupant status | [0063] note the system determines the occupant’s status, such as whether or not the occupant appears threatened by a person outside of the vehicle | [0082] note sending a notification and/or streamed video of the vehicle interior to one or more remote devices in a case where the electronic device detects an emergency (e.g., detects extreme fear or distress from an occupant or detects potential harm to the occupant as a result of the person outside of the vehicle, etc.), and additionally or alternatively, may activate the air conditioning, lower the windows, notify emergency services (e.g., 911), and/or stream video to emergency services | [0079]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Golston into Swartz. This provides the ability to remotely monitor the occupant while making them as comfortable as possible during a potential emergency.
Regarding claim 13, Swartz in view of Golston teach wherein the steps further comprise: receiving a response signal communicated from the remote device subsequent to communicating the initial signal, the response signal indicative of at least one corrective action to be performed; and causing the at least one corrective action to be performed via at least one component of the parked vehicle (see at least [0076] of Swartz | [0080-0081] of Golston).
Regarding claim 17, Swartz in view of Golston teach wherein the at least one corrective action comprises at least one of opening a window of the parked vehicle, unlocking a door of the parked vehicle, activating a climate control system of the parked vehicle, or implementing a predetermined setting of the climate control system of the parked vehicle (see at least [0081-0082] of Golston).
Regarding claim 19, Swartz in view of Golston teach wherein the at least one external vehicle environmental sensor comprises at least one external vehicle camera, wherein the initial signal comprises data indicative of an image or video of at least one of the suspect event, the surrounding of the parked vehicle, or at least one pedestrian associated with the suspect event (see at least [0060] of Swartz, note cameras | [0070] of Swartz, note live video feed showing the threat, which would be the approaching person (which includes the surrounding of the occupied vehicle)).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz (US 2025/0249908 A1) in view of Golston (US 2018/0251122 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of Salter (US 11,787,290 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Swartz in view of Golston do not specifically teach wherein the at least one corrective action comprises playing a prerecorded message via at least one external vehicle speaker of the parked vehicle.
It is known for systems to handle situations differently. For example, Salter teaches a system wherein at least one corrective action comprises playing a prerecorded message via at least one external vehicle speaker of the parked vehicle (see at least Figure 2, items 120 and 122 | col. 6, lines 39-67 | col. 2, line 51 – col. 3, line 36 | col. 9, line 57 – col. 10, line 38 | col. 5, lines 32-37 | col. 8, lines 33-38).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Salter into Swartz in view of Golston. This provides the ability to try and deter the occurrence of the suspect event.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz (US 2025/0249908 A1) in view of Golston (US 2018/0251122 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and in further view of Sacre (US 2018/0322751 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Swartz in view of Golston wherein the at least one external vehicle environmental sensor comprises at least one external vehicle microphone (see at least [0060] of Swartz).
However, Swartz in view of Golston do not specifically teach wherein the at least one corrective action comprises establishing a two-way communication link between the remote device and the surrounding of the parked vehicle via at least one external vehicle speaker and the at least one external vehicle microphone.
It is known to monitor a system in different ways. For example, Sacre teaches a monitoring system wherein at least one corrective action comprises establishing a two-way communication link between a remote device and a surrounding of a monitored asset via at least one external speaker and at least one external microphone (see at least Figure 1, items 101, 108, 106, 104 and 114 | [0073]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Sacre into Swartz in view of Golston. This provides the ability to try and deter the occurrence of the suspect event, while also uploading images captured by the camera to the user’s computing device (and/or cloud) to help identify the suspect event.
Regarding claim 16, Swartz in view of Golston and Sacre teach wherein the at least one external vehicle environmental sensor comprises at least one external vehicle microphone and at least one external vehicle camera, and wherein the at least one corrective action comprises establishing a two-way communication link between the remote device and the surrounding of the parked vehicle via the at least one external vehicle microphone, the at least one external vehicle camera, and at least one external vehicle speaker (see at least [0060] of Swartz | Figure 1, items 101, 108, 106, 104 and 114 of Sacre | [0073] of Sacre).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz (US 2025/0249908 A1) in view of Golston (US 2018/0251122 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Mai (US 2020/0406860 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Swartz in view of Golston do not specifically teach wherein the suspect event comprises at least one of a pedestrian observing an occupant of the parked vehicle, the pedestrian knocking on an exterior surface of the parked vehicle, or the pedestrian communicating with the occupant of the parked vehicle.
It is known for a suspect event to be one of a variety of different types of suspect events. For example, Mai teaches a system that determines a suspect event, wherein the suspect event comprises at least one of a pedestrian observing an occupant of a parked vehicle, the pedestrian knocking on an exterior surface of the parked vehicle, or the pedestrian communicating with the occupant of the parked vehicle (see at least [0241] note detecting an approaching person and detecting a person peeping into the vehicle).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Mai into Swartz of Golston. This provides a known alternative suspect event that can be used in place of, or in addition to, Swartz in view of Golson’s suspect event while providing predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swartz (US 2025/0249908 A1) in view of Golston (US 2018/0251122 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Swartz discloses a vehicle (see at least Figure 1B, item 110 | [0058] | [0059] note occupants can be inside and outside the vehicle while it is charging | [0034] note the features, structures, or characteristics described in this specification may be combined in any suitable manner) comprising:
at least one external vehicle environmental sensor (see at least Figure 1B, items 111, 113, 115 and 117 | [0060] note cameras and sound detection sensors | [0077]);
at least one internal vehicle occupant sensor (see at least [0074] note various occupant sensors);
a suspect event identification module comprising instructions stored in at least one memory and executable by one or more processors (see at least Figure 1, item 112 | [0059] note vehicle computer | [0050] note any actions described herein may be performed by one or more processors and memory | [0191]) to cause the suspect event identification module to:
determine a status of the vehicle occupants based at least in part on a signal communicated from the at least one internal vehicle occupant sensor (see at least [0074] note various occupant sensors); and
determine the occurrence of a suspect event at the vehicle based, at least in part, on data indicative of an audio environment of a surrounding of the vehicle (see at least [0059] note some occupants can be inside the vehicle and others can be outside the vehicle while it is charging | [0060] note the one or more sensors, such as cameras and sound detection sensors, can detect an unauthorized person approaching the vehicle | [0077]); and
a communication module comprising instructions stored in at least one memory and executable by one or more processors (see at least [0050] note any actions described herein may be performed by one or more processors and memory | [0152] note the security processor controls communication | [0191]) to cause the communication module to:
communicate, in response to the determination of the suspect event, an initial signal to a remote device of an operator of the vehicle, the operator outside of the vehicle (see at least Figure 1D, items 116, 142 and 126 | [0059] note occupants can be inside and outside the vehicle while it is charging | [0065] note transmitting a notification to one or more devices associated with the vehicle and the occupants of the vehicle, such as an in-vehicle display, user device(s) and the charging station | [0070] | [0076] note the owner can be away from the vehicle, such as at the charging station or elsewhere | [0078] note the occupants and owner, if present, are alerted via the in-vehicle display and connected user devices).
However, Swartz does not specifically disclose determine a status of the vehicle as occupied; and determine, in response to the determination of the vehicle as occupied, the occurrence of a suspect event.
It is known to react to a suspect event in different ways. For example, Golston teaches a system that determines a status of a vehicle as occupied; and determines, in response to the determination of the vehicle as occupied, the occurrence of a suspect event (see at least [0006] | [0054] | [0067] note the weight sensor may be used to determine the presence of an occupant in the vehicle, and then use sound and image analysis to determine their occupant status | [0063] note the system determines the occupant’s status, such as whether or not the occupant appears threatened by a person outside of the vehicle | [0082] note sending a notification and/or streamed video of the vehicle interior to one or more remote devices in a case where the electronic device detects an emergency (e.g., detects extreme fear or distress from an occupant or detects potential harm to the occupant as a result of the person outside of the vehicle, etc.), and additionally or alternatively, may activate the air conditioning, lower the windows, notify emergency services (e.g., 911), and/or stream video to emergency services | [0079]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Golston into Swartz. This provides the ability to remotely monitor the occupant while making them as comfortable as possible during a potential emergency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689