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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending on the application, of which claim 3 is amended and claims 15-20 are newly added.
In light of the remarks the previous drawing objection and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
The use of the Rachow reference in the previous rejection is removed in view of applicant’s argument.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.10, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive as the Rachow reference does not qualify as prior art. Thus, the Rachow reference is withdrawn. However, the rejection to claim 1 in view of previously present references Holt and Sykula appears to still apply. This rejection does not constitute a new ground of rejection as it relies on fewer than all references and relies on the same teachings (see MPEP 1207.03(a), subsection II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 & 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1).
As to claim 1, Holt discloses a sensor cleaning device for a vehicle (abstract), the sensor cleaning device comprising: a housing (Figs.4-6 ref 32) including: at least one first housing inlet (Figs.5-6 ref 31) used as a liquid inlet for letting a liquid into the housing [0044]; at least one second housing inlet (Fig.5 ref 30) used as a gas inlet for letting a gas into the housing [0044]; a housing outlet opening (see Figs.4-6 portion of ref 32 where refs 40/41 are provided a) for dispensing fluid introduced into the housing via the at least one first housing inlet and/or the at least one second housing inlet; a fluid distribution device (Figs.4-6 ref 33) including: a first distribution inlet (Fig.6 ref 58) corresponding to the first housing inlet; a first distribution outlet (Fig.6 ref 40) corresponding to the first distribution inlet; a second distribution inlet (Fig.5 ref 56) corresponding to the second housing inlet; a second distribution outlet (Fig.5 ref 41) corresponding to the second distribution inlet; wherein the distribution device is insertable into the housing [0041]; wherein each first distribution inlet is in fluid communication with a first housing inlet and the second distribution inlet is in fluid communication with a second housing inlet when the device is inserted into the housing (see Figs.4-6). Holt does not disclose the quantity of second distribution outlet corresponding to twice the number of inlets. However, a skilled artisan recognizes that such a feature would amount to inclusion of more air outlets. Further, the configuration of placing at least two air outlets having a common air source and air flow channel for the purposes of cleaning a sensor is known in the art, as seen by Sykula.
Sykula disclose an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein the usage of two air outlets (Figs.3-4 refs 36/38) and a single liquid outlet (Figs.3-4 ref 76) supplied within a single nozzle (Fig.4 ref 56). One air nozzle allows for cleaning while the other allows for the formation of an air curtain, such that the cleaning airstream removes and dries the sensor while the air curtain prevents debris from contacting the sensor [0022]. The air nozzles are provided with air flow from a single air source (Fig.4 ref 80) and share a flow path to a certain degree before diverging to the respective air outlets (see Fig.5). Thus, Sykula suggests the presence of two air outlets and one liquid outlet on a single nozzle body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt to incorporate a second air distribution outlet in order to provide both air cleaning and an air curtain to dry the sensor and prevent contamination (Sykula [0022]). Further, as it is known to provide multiple air outlets with air from a common inlet (Sykula Figs.4-5), a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to provide each air outlet with air flow the air inlet.
As to claim 2, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the first distribution outlet is fluidly connected with a fluid distribution inlet via a first outlet channel (see Fig.6 ref 35).
As to claim 10, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the device is insertable into the housing via a mounting opening (see Figs.5-6 spool would be inserted into ref 54 through ref 37 during assembly).
As to claim 11, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the fluid distribution device includes at least one locating member (Fig. 5 ref 34 and Fig.6 ref 70) for positively connecting the distribution device with the housing.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kawamura (US 20190337490 A1).
As to claim 3, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 2, but does not disclose a cross section of the first outlet channel increases in a direction from the inlet to the outlet. However, it is known in the art to enlarge a flow channel in a direction towards a nozzle outlet, as seen by Kawamura.
Kawamura discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract & [0003]), wherein an area of a channel (Fig.12 refs 38A/39A) from a nozzle inlet (Fig.12 refs 36A/37A) to a nozzle outlet (Fig.12 refs 31A/32A) increases towards the direction of the outlet thereby allowing for a wider spraying region and increased spray coverage (Fig.12 & [0188 & 0217]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt to increase the cross-section of the outlet channels in the direction towards the outlet in order to provide greater spray coverage (Kawamura Fig.12 & [0188 & 0217]).
As to claim 4, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 3, wherein there is a distribution chamber (Holt Fig.5 portion of ref 36 immediately above ref 56) to which the second distribution inlet ends, and each distribution outlet is connected with the distribution chamber via a second outlet channel (e.g., Holt Fig.5 portion or ref 56 directly below ref 41 and in center of ref 32). Since each second distribution outlet is fed from the same source, and the opening for the nozzle location is located at the center, a skilled artisan would connect the outlets to the central portion of flow path in order to reduce complexity and fabrication time as opposed to connecting each outlet to the inlet directly via a separate flow path.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1), and Kawamura (US 20190337490 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zhao (US 20190202410 A1).
As to claim 6, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 4, but does not disclose the length of the second outlet channel. However, such lengths for an air channel of a nozzle insert are known in the art, as seen by Zhao.
Zhao discloses an art related sensor cleaning device for a vehicle (abstract), wherein a length of a channel (Fig.4 refs 584 and 586) from an air inlet (Fig.4 ref 540) to an air outlet (Fig.4 ref 546) is approximately 1.4 to 3.25 mm (see [0043] indicating that SL is 1.2-1.75 mm and Fig.4 showing that the distance from ref 540 to ref 546 to approximately twice of SL). Even should the distance be larger than 3.25 mm, it would still be within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt to utilize a length of 1.4 to 3.5 mm for the second outlet channel length, as such is a known length for an air channel in a nozzle insert (see Zhao Fig.4 & [0043]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known size for the air channel of an insert when one is not explicitly disclosed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1), and Kawamura (US 20190337490 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of.
Baudouin (US 20240198976 A1) and Galera (US 20170313286 A1).
As to claim 8, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 4, the first outlet channel and second outlet channel are directed towards each other (see Holt Figs.5-6 ref 35 extends to the right and ref 36 extends to the left, thus being directed towards each other). However, assuming arguendo that applicant intended that the outlet channels and the outlets are directed towards each other, such a feature is also known in the art, as seen by Baudouin and Galera.
Baudouin discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein a single nozzle body has both air and liquid outlets as well as corresponding outlet channels (see Fig.3) in order to spray fluid to a sensor surface for cleaning (Fig.1)
Galera discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract), wherein a single nozzle body has both air and liquid outlets which allow for directing of fluid onto a sensor surface for cleaning the sensor (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt to provide the outlets and outlet channels directed towards one another in order to target and clean a sensor surface, as is known in the art (see Baudouin Figs.1 & 3, and Galera Fig.1). Such a modification merely amounts to a known manner of providing liquid and air outlet for the cleaning of a sensor, with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan also recognizes that such a configuration is based on the size of the nozzle and its outlets with respect to the surface to be cleaned, such that if a surface is smaller than the distance between the outlets, such a configuration is required in order to apply fluid to the sensor surface.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berning (US 20030234303 A1), Weitzel (US 20160318486 A1), and Maruyama (US 20040251315 A1).
As to claim 9, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 1, but does not showcase the distribution device is inserted through the outlet opening. However, the configuration of placing a nozzle insert into the front opening of the nozzle is known in the art, as seen by Bening, Weitzel, and Maruyama.
Berning discloses an art related washing device for a vehicle (abstract & title), wherein it is shown that a nozzle insert can be inserted into a front opening of a nozzle housing (see Figs.1 & 14). Weitzel discloses an art related washing device for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is shown that a nozzle insert can be inserted into a front opening of a nozzle housing (see Fig.2). Maruyama discloses an art related washing device for a vehicle (abstract), wherein it is shown that a nozzle insert can be inserted into a front opening of a nozzle housing (see Fig.2). Accordingly, it is a well-known construction to insert a nozzle insert into a front opening of a nozzle housing, where the outlet of the nozzle housing defines the outlet through which fluid is ejected.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt such that the fluid distribution device is inserted via the housing outlet, as such is a well-known configuration in the art (Berning Figs.1 & 14, Weitzel Fig.2, and Maruyama Fig.2) and a skilled artisan would recognize such a configuration as a known alternative. It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize one known configuration for insertion of a nozzle insert in place of another, with a reasonable expectation of success. Such a modification would merely require slight structural variations to the housing in order to receive the nozzle insert from the outlet opening.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schlick (US 4212425 A) and Ono (US 20110266375 A1).
As to claim 12, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 1, but does not disclose a heating device for heating the housing inlet or fluid distribution device. However, such a feature would have been obvious in view of Schlick.
Schlick discloses an art related vehicle cleaning device (abstract), wherein a heater (ref 8) is mounted within a housing (ref 4) containing a nozzle insert (ref 3) in order to remove ice from the nozzle (Col.2 lines 15-40).
Ono discloses an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein a heater (Fig.19B refs 114 & 115) is provided within a nozzle housing adjacent an inlet (see area near ref 9a) in order to heat fluid sent to the nozzle outlet [0141].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt to provide a heating element in the housing of the nozzle in order to remove ice from the nozzle (Schlick Col.2 lines 15-40) and heat the fluid (Ono [0141]). Through heat transfer, such a heating element would heat the first housing inlet and/or the fluid distribution device.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gopalan (US 20110061692 A1).
As to claim 13, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 1, but does not disclose the material of which the fluid distribution device is made. However, it is known in the art to utilize metal for nozzle inserts, as seen by Gopalan.
Gopalan discloses an art related cleaning system utilizing nozzles (abstract), wherein it is known that to make nozzle inserts from known durable materials for fluid handling, such as metal [0113].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt to manufacture the distribution device from at least partially metal, as is known for fluid handling, in order to provide a durable insert (Gopalan [0113]).
[0113] customary to use metal for nozzle insert.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hester (US 20100072307 A1) and Takemoto (US 20050045740 A1).
As to claim 14, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 1, but does not disclose the presence of more than one fluid distribution device providing in the housing. However, the placement of multiple fluid inserts within a housing is known in the art, as seen by Hester and Takemoto.
Hester discloses an art related nozzle configuration (abstract) capable of use with vehicles [0037], wherein an enclosure is provided to receive multiple nozzle inserts (see Figs.2-5B also [0048, 0061, & 0065]) in order to provide large spray coverage [0016].
Takemoto discloses an art related vehicle washing apparatus (abstract), wherein it is shown that more than one nozzle insert can be provided within a single housing (see Figs.2-3) in order to increase spray coverage [0021].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt to provide more than one distribution device within the housing, including any modifications to the housing to do so, in order to increase spray coverage (Hester [0016] & Takemoto [0021]).
Claim(s) 15-16 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1).
As to claim 15, Holt discloses a sensor cleaning device for a vehicle (abstract), the sensor cleaning device comprising: a housing (Figs.4-6 ref 32) including: at least one first housing inlet (Figs.5-6 ref 31) used as a liquid inlet for letting a liquid into the housing [0044]; at least one second housing inlet (Fig.5 ref 30) used as a gas inlet for letting a gas into the housing [0044]; a housing outlet opening (see Figs.4-6 portion of ref 32 where refs 40/41 are provided a) for dispensing fluid introduced into the housing via the at least one first housing inlet and/or the at least one second housing inlet; a fluid distribution device (Figs.4-6 ref 33) including: a first distribution inlet (Fig.6 ref 58) corresponding to the first housing inlet; a first distribution outlet (Fig.6 ref 40) corresponding to the first distribution inlet; a second distribution inlet (Fig.5 ref 56) corresponding to the second housing inlet; a second distribution outlet (Fig.5 ref 41) corresponding to the second distribution inlet; wherein the distribution device is insertable into the housing [0041]; wherein each first distribution inlet is in fluid communication with a first housing inlet and the second distribution inlet is in fluid communication with a second housing inlet when the device is inserted into the housing (see Figs.4-6). Holt does not disclose the quantity of second distribution outlet corresponding to twice the number of inlets. However, a skilled artisan recognizes that such a feature would amount to inclusion of more air outlets. Further, the configuration of placing at least two air outlets having a common air source and air flow channel for the purposes of cleaning a sensor is known in the art, as seen by Sykula.
Sykula disclose an art related sensor cleaning device (abstract), wherein the usage of two air outlets (Figs.3-4 refs 36/38) and a single liquid outlet (Figs.3-4 ref 76) supplied within a single nozzle (Fig.4 ref 56). One air nozzle allows for cleaning while the other allows for the formation of an air curtain, such that the cleaning airstream removes and dries the sensor while the air curtain prevents debris from contacting the sensor [0022]. The air nozzles are provided with air flow from a single air source (Fig.4 ref 80) and share a flow path to a certain degree before diverging to the respective air outlets (see Fig.5). Thus, Sykula suggests the presence of two air outlets and one liquid outlet on a single nozzle body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt to incorporate a second air distribution outlet in order to provide both air cleaning and an air curtain to dry the sensor and prevent contamination (Sykula [0022]). Further, as it is known to provide multiple air outlets with air from a common inlet (Sykula Figs.4-5), a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to provide each air outlet with air flow the air inlet. The modification provides a distribution chamber (Holt Fig.5 portion of ref 36 immediately above ref 56) to which the second distribution inlet ends, and each distribution outlet is connected with the distribution chamber via a second outlet channel (e.g., Holt Fig.5 portion or ref 56 directly below ref 41 and in center of ref 32). Since each second distribution outlet is fed from the same source, and the opening for the nozzle location is located at the center, a skilled artisan would connect the outlets to the central portion of flow path in order to reduce complexity and fabrication time as opposed to connecting each outlet to the inlet directly via a separate flow path.
As to claim 16, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the first distribution outlet is fluidly connected with a fluid distribution inlet via a first outlet channel (see Holt Fig.6 ref 35).
As to claim 20, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 15, wherein respective cross sectional areas of at least two outlet channels are different (e.g., see Sykula Fig.5 showcasing that air outlets for cleaning and providing an air curtain have channels with different cross-sectional areas). Thus, a skilled artisan would incorporate such different channel areas when providing the two outlets in order to ensure workability of the outlets.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Kawamura (US 20190337490 A1).
As to claim 17, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 15, but does not disclose a cross section of the first outlet channel increases in a direction from the inlet to the outlet. However, it is known in the art to enlarge a flow channel in a direction towards a nozzle outlet, as seen by Kawamura.
Kawamura discloses an art related sensor cleaning system (abstract & [0003]), wherein an area of a channel (Fig.12 refs 38A/39A) from a nozzle inlet (Fig.12 refs 36A/37A) to a nozzle outlet (Fig.12 refs 31A/32A) increases towards the direction of the outlet thereby allowing for a wider spraying region and increased spray coverage (Fig.12 & [0188 & 0217]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt to increase the cross-section of the outlet channels in the direction towards the outlet in order to provide greater spray coverage (Kawamura Fig.12 & [0188 & 0217]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20020005440 A1) in view of Sykula (US 20200398795 A1), and Kawamura (US 20190337490 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhao (US 20190202410 A1).
As to claim 19, Modified Holt teaches the device of claim 15, but does not disclose the length of the second outlet channel. However, such lengths for an air channel of a nozzle insert are known in the art, as seen by Zhao.
Zhao discloses an art related sensor cleaning device for a vehicle (abstract), wherein a length of a channel (Fig.4 refs 584 and 586) from an air inlet (Fig.4 ref 540) to an air outlet (Fig.4 ref 546) is approximately 1.4 to 3.25 mm (see [0043] indicating that SL is 1.2-1.75 mm and Fig.4 showing that the distance from ref 540 to ref 546 to approximately twice of SL). Even should the distance be larger than 3.25 mm, it would still be within the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Holt to utilize a length of 1.4 to 3.5 mm for the second outlet channel length, as such is a known length for an air channel in a nozzle insert (see Zhao Fig.4 & [0043]). It is in the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a known size for the air channel of an insert when one is not explicitly disclosed, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, & 18 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: Gopalan (US 20160030954 A1) appears to be the closest prior art of record to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, Gopalan showcases a nozzle insert having a cross-sectional area of 1.044 mm2 [0167] for a flow channel of a cleaning nozzle. Although such an area is within the range of the claim even when two outlets are provided, Sykula showcases that an air curtain nozzle has a larger opening and channel size than a cleaning air nozzle (see Sykula Fig.5). Sykula appears to showcase that such a channel size is at least double that utilized for the air cleaning nozzle (Fig.5). Thus, even if such an area could be utilized for the cleaning air nozzle outlet channel, it would dictate that the air curtain nozzle flow channel would need to be at least 2.088 mm2 and result in a total area greater than the claimed range. Furthermore, Gopalan provides a fluidic oscillator insert and its dimensions. A skilled artisan recognizes that it would not be desired for an air curtain to have oscillating characteristics, as it would temporarily disable an air curtain in the area in which the flow is oscillating from. The claimed dimensions for the total area of the air flow channels is not a mere change in shape or dimension as by having a sum of the cross-sectional areas for the second outlet channels in the claimed range good directionality and flow rate is achieved (see published application [0044]). As none of the art of record teaches or suggests such total cross-sectional area for all second outlet channels, the claim is considered to contain allowable subject matter. Claim 7 is considered to contain allowable subject matter for being dependent upon claim 5. Claim 18 is allowable for the same reasons as claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Rachow (US20200061643A1) showcases that a nozzle body may having an inlet (Fig.2 ref 30’) which supplies multiple flow paths (see Figs.1-6) for allowing ejection of air [0026] from multiple outlets (refs 18/16).
Trebouet (US20230126082A1) showcases that a nozzle (combination of refs 10/11) may having an inlet (Fig.2 portion where ref 10 connects to ref 500) which supplies multiple flow paths (see Fig.3) for allowing ejection of air [0052 & 0075] from multiple outlets (refs 12).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAIR CHAUDHRI whose telephone number is (571)272-4773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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.
/OMAIR CHAUDHRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711