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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the tubular body from claims 2 and 12 and the tubular bodies from claims 8 and 9 (Note: the Applicant disclosed on Page 20 / Line 24 that element 1.6 is a tubular body, but element 1.6 is not tubular as shown in the drawings. Element 1.6 appears to be rectangular in nature, and not tubular. Tubular is defined by dictionary.com as “having the form or shape of a tube; tubiform” and tube is defined as “a hollow, usually cylindrical body of metal, glass, rubber, or other material, used especially for conveying or containing liquids or gases.” How is element 1.6 a tubular member?) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to because it is unclear what the left 7.5 is as shown in Figure 7. Element 7.5 is disclosed as being a connecting wrap in the specification. The right 7.5 appears to be a connecting wrap that is used to wrap around elements 12 and 13. The left 7.5 does not appear to be a wrap, but a solid body which elements 12 and 13 appear to fit into. How is the left 7.5 in Figure 7 a connecting wrap?
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 30 / Line 18 recites “the tubular bodies 1.7” which should be changed to --the tubular bodies 1.6-- because numeral 1.6 has been used to signify tubular bodies in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 3, recites “the connecting means” which should be changed to --the two connecting means-- to maintain consistent claim terminology.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 "the chain direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, line 4, recites “wherein at least one connecting means is designed” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is referring to a new structural element or if the at least one connecting means from line 4 is one of the two connecting means from line 4. Should line 4 be amended to recite --wherein at least one connecting means of the two connecting means is designed--?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the tension member wraps" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, line 8, discloses “at least one tension member wrap” therefore the claims do not explicitly disclose a plurality of tension member wraps. Should line 3 be amended to recite --the at least one tension member wrap--?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the direction of the chain" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the Applicant trying to refer to the chain direction from claim 1, line 3, or another direction? Chains can be viewed as having directions in the X, Y, and Z planes thus having multiple directions.
Claim 9, lines 3-4, recites “at least one connecting bolt” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the at least one connecting bolt from claim 9 is related to or different from the connecting bolt from claim 1, line 6. Is the Applicant referring to the same bolt structure in both claims?
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the height" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the connecting element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 discloses “connecting elements”, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the connecting elements to be the connecting element.
Claim 10, lines 2-3, recites “the height of the connecting element corresponds to the height of the tubular body” which is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what structure must be present for the two heights to correspond with each other. Do the two heights have to be the same or can there be a difference between the heights? The metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the height" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the tubular body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 discloses “at least two tubular bodies”, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the tubular bodies to be the tubular body.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the connecting element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 discloses “connecting elements”, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the connecting elements to be the connecting element.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the rolling surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the chain link" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 discloses “a plurality of chain links”, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the chain links to be the chain link.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the connecting element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 discloses “connecting elements”, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the connecting elements to be the connecting element.
Claim 12, lines 3-4, recites “wherein at least one connecting means being designed” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is referring to a new structural element or if the at least one connecting means from lines 3-4 is one of the two connecting means from lines 2-3. Should lines 3-4 be amended to recite --wherein at least one connecting means of the two connecting means of the connecting element being designed--?
Claim 12, lines 4-5, recites “a connecting bolt” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the connecting bolt from claim 12 is related to or different from the connecting bolt from claim 1, line 6. Is the Applicant referring to the same bolt structure in both claims?
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the connecting element" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 discloses “connecting elements”, and the Applicant has not previously singled out one of the connecting elements to be the connecting element.
Claim 13, line 3, recites “from one connecting means to the other connecting means” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is referring to a new connecting means with the phrase “one connecting means” or if the Applicant is trying to refer to one of the connecting means from claim 12 or one of the connecting means from claim 1. If the Applicant is trying to refer to one of the connecting means from claim 12 then the dependency of claim 13 should be amended because claim 13 does not depend from claim 12.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the other connecting means" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that the Applicant is trying to refer to one of the connecting means from claim 12, but claim 13 does not depend from claim 12.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the connecting means" in lines 2-3 and line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 discloses “one connecting means” and “the other connecting means” thus it is unclear if the Applicant is trying to refer to either of the connecting means from claim 13 or both of the connecting means from claim 13.
Claim 16, line 3, recites “connecting means” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is referring to a new connecting means or if the Applicant is trying to refer to one of the connecting means from claim 1.
Claim 16, lines 3-4, recites “connecting means” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is referring to a new connecting means or if the Applicant is trying to refer to one of the connecting means from claim 12. If the Applicant is trying to refer to one of the connecting means from claim 12 then should claim 16 be amended to recite --the connecting means--?
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the connecting wrap" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17, line 4, recites “the bolt receptacle” which is indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is trying to refer to the bolt receptacle from claim 12, line 4 or if the Applicant is trying to refer to the tubular bolt receptacle from claim 1, line 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-15, and 18-20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orpana (US 4,141,600 A).
Regarding claim 1, Orpana discloses a track chain for tracked vehicles (22) having a plurality of chain links (34; the 34 closest to 36 in Figure 2) which are arranged one behind the other in a chain direction (see Figure 2) and are pivotably connected to one another, each having two connecting means (the openings that 56 go through), wherein at least one connecting means is designed as a tubular bolt receptacle extending transversely to the chain direction for receiving a connecting bolt (56, 96, 98),
wherein the track chain includes at least one tension member wrap (68) **[for transferring tensile forces from one connecting means to the other connecting means]**.
Regarding claim 2, Orpana discloses that the tension member wrap is embedded in a plastic compound (elastomer; Column 2 / Lines 58-59) together with the two connecting means to form a tubular body.
Regarding claim 4, Orpana discloses that the tension member wrap for transmitting the tensile forces between the connecting means is guided around the two connecting means in the manner of a circulation strand (68 is viewed as being a strand as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Orpana discloses that both connecting means are designed as tubular bolt receptacles (see Figures 2, 3, 4, and 6).
Regarding claim 7, Orpana discloses a preformed tension member (68, 70) comprising the tension member wrap.
Regarding claim 8, Orpana discloses that at least two tubular bodies are connected to one another via connecting elements (34; the 34 that connect two adjacent 34s that are closest to 36 as shown in Figure 2) to form a connector chain (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Orpana discloses two tubular bodies (two 34s that are adjacent to each other and closest to 36 in Figure 2) arranged next to each other transversely to the direction of the chain (see Figure 2), which are connected to each other via at least one connecting bolt (56, 96, 98) to form a double chain link.
Regarding claim 10, Orpana discloses that the height of the connecting element corresponds to the height of the tubular body (all of the 34s have the same height thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Orpana discloses that the connecting element has a rolling surface (the outer surface of one of the viewed connecting elements) extending the rolling surface of the chain link (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Orpana discloses that the connecting element has two connecting means (the holes in each viewed connecting element that allow a respective bolt to go through) each for connection to a tubular body, at least one connecting means being designed as a tubular connecting bolt receptacle for receiving a connecting bolt (56, 96, 98).
Regarding claim 13, Orpana discloses that the connecting element has a connecting wrap (68) **[for transmitting tensile forces from one connecting means to the other connecting means]**.
Regarding claim 14, Orpana discloses that the connecting wrap for transmitting tensile forces between the connecting means is guided around the two connecting means in the manner of a circulation strand (68 is viewed as being a strand as shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Orpana discloses that each tubular body is connected in one piece to at least one connecting bolt to form a hinge chain link (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Orpana discloses that the tubular body has a traction aid (46, 48) to increase the traction (as shown in Figure 12, the tapered portions of each 34 pinch the soil thus creating a traction aid).
Regarding claim 19, Orpana discloses a track drive for a tracked vehicle (22) with a track chain (see Figure 2) according to claim 1, which is guided around at least one drive pinion (26) and several running wheels (32).
Regarding claim 20, Orpana discloses a tracked vehicle (22) with a track drive according to claim 19.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by H. A. Knox et al. (US 1,949,423 A).
Regarding claim 1, H. A. Knox et al. discloses a track chain for tracked vehicles (Page 1 / Lines 5-6) having a plurality of chain links (see Figure 1) which are arranged one behind the other in a chain direction and are pivotably connected to one another, each having two connecting means (5, 8, D), wherein at least one connecting means is designed as a tubular bolt receptacle (5 and 8 are tubular) extending transversely to the chain direction for receiving a connecting bolt (D),
wherein the track chain includes at least one tension member wrap (14) **[for transferring tensile forces from one connecting means to the other connecting means]**.
Regarding claim 4, H. A. Knox et al. discloses that the tension member wrap for transmitting the tensile forces between the connecting means is guided around the two connecting means in the manner of a circulation strand (14 is fabric or cords that form an endless loop thus meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 5, H. A. Knox et al. discloses that both connecting means are designed as tubular bolt receptacles (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, H. A. Knox et al. discloses two tubular bodies (see Figure 1) arranged next to each other transversely to the direction of the chain, which are connected to each other via at least one connecting bolt (D) to form a double chain link (see Figure 1).
**The above statements in brackets are instances of intended use and functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does, see MPEP 2114. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.
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.
Claim 3, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orpana (US 4,141,600 A).
Regarding claim 3, Orpana discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the elasticity and extensibility of the tubular body is adjustable by the tension member wraps.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the elasticity and extensibility of the tubular body be adjustable by the tension member wraps, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Providing the ability to adjust the elasticity and extensibility allows for the tension to be optimized to a respective environment.
Claim 6, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orpana (US 4,141,600 A) in view of Orpana (US 3,993,366 A; hereinafter referred to as ‘366).
Regarding claim 6, Orpana discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the bolt receptacles have annular projections for positioning the tension member wrap.
‘366 teaches a bolt receptacle (128) that has annular projections (the sides of 138 and 140) for positioning a tension member wrap (68’).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bolt receptacles of Orpana to have annular projections for positioning the tension member wrap, as taught by ‘366, for the purpose of providing a structure that aids in preventing axial movement of the at least one tension member wrap.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 10-12, 15, and 18, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H. A. Knox et al. (US 1,949,423 A) in view of Orpana (US 3,993,366 A).
Regarding claim 2, H. A. Knox et al. discloses that the tension member wrap is embedded in a compound (a resilient material such as rubber; Page 1 / Lines 40-41) together with the two connecting means to form a tubular body (the structure of H. A. Knox et al. is a tubular body as much as Applicant’s body is a tubular body; see Figures 2 and 4).
H. A. Knox et al. discloses that the compound is a plastic compound.
Orpana teaches links (34) made of a plastic material (Column 5 / Line 67 – Column 6 / Line 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the compound to be a plastic material, as taught by Orpana, for the purpose of providing a material that is rust resistant.
Regarding claim 3, H. A. Knox et al. in view of Orpana discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the elasticity and extensibility of the tubular body is adjustable by the tension member wraps.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the elasticity and extensibility of the tubular body be adjustable by the tension member wraps, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Providing the ability to adjust the elasticity and extensibility allows for the tension to be optimized to a respective environment.
Regarding claim 6, H. A. Knox et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the bolt receptacles have annular projections for positioning the tension member wrap.
Orpana teaches a bolt receptacle (128) that has annular projections (the sides of 138 and 140) for positioning a tension member wrap (68’).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bolt receptacles of H. A. Knox et al. to have annular projections for positioning the tension member wrap, as taught by Orpana, for the purpose of providing a structure that aids in preventing axial movement of the at least one tension member wrap.
Regarding claim 8, H. A. Knox et al. discloses that at least two tubular bodies are connected to one another via connecting elements (C) to form a connector chain.
Regarding claim 10, H. A. Knox et al. discloses that the height of the connecting element corresponds to the height of the tubular body (given the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, the exact meaning of “corresponds” is not known thus the height of C is viewed as corresponding to the height of A).
Regarding claim 11, H. A. Knox et al. discloses that the connecting element has a rolling surface (the curved outer surface of C) extending the rolling surface of the chain link (C extends outwards from the link thus is viewed as meeting the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 12, H. A. Knox et al. discloses that the connecting element has two connecting means (5, 8, D) each for connection to a tubular body (the structure of H. A. Knox et al. is a tubular body as much as Applicant’s body is a tubular body; see Figures 2 and 4), at least one connecting means being designed as a tubular connecting bolt receptacle (the opening that D fits into) for receiving a connecting bolt (D).
Regarding claim 15, H. A. Knox et al. discloses that each tubular body is connected in one piece to at least one connecting bolt (D) to form a hinge chain link (each A can pivot about a respective D thus forming a hinge).
Regarding claim 18, H. A. Knox et al. discloses that the tubular body has a traction aid (the protruding parts on the bottom of each A in Figure 2 that allow a recessed area to be viewed) to increase the traction.
Claim 7, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H. A. Knox et al. (US 1,949,423 A) in view of R. I. Schonitzer et al. (US 2,331,350 A).
Regarding claim 7, H. A. Knox et al. discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose a preformed tension member comprising the tension member wrap.
R. I. Schonitzer et al. teaches a preformed tension member (47, 48) that comprises a tension member wrap (47) for the purpose of increasing the strength of a core (Column 4 / Lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the track chain of H. A. Knox et al. to have a preformed tension member comprising the tension member wrap or the purpose of increasing the strength of a core, as taught by R. I. Schonitzer et al.
Claims 13 and 14, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H. A. Knox et al. (US 1,949,423 A) in view of Orpana (US 3,993,366 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Weidmann (DE 102019005981 B3; see provided machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, H. A. Knox et al. in view of Orpana discloses all of the claim limitations, see above, but does not disclose that the connecting element has a connecting wrap for transmitting tensile forces from one connecting means to the other connecting means.
Weidmann teaches a connecting element (1) that has a connecting wrap (4) for transmitting tensile forces from one connecting means (the left 2 in Figure 1) to the other connecting means (the right 2 in Figure 1) for the purpose of absorbing tensile forces that occur during operation of a crawler belt (Page 2 / Lines 7-8 of the machine translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connecting element of H. A. Knox et al. in view of Orpana to have a connecting wrap for transmitting tensile forces from one connecting means to the other connecting means for the purpose of absorbing tensile forces that occur during operation of a crawler belt, as taught by Weidmann.
Regarding claim 14, H. A. Knox et al. in view of Orpana and further in view of Weidmann discloses that the connecting wrap for transmitting tensile forces between the connecting means is guided around the two connecting means in the manner of a circulation strand (see the shape of 4 in Figure 1 of Weidmann).
Claims 19 and 20, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H. A. Knox et al. (US 1,949,423 A) in view of C. S. Busque (US 2,426,816 A).
Regarding claim 19, H. A. Knox et al. discloses a track drive for a tracked vehicle (Page 1 / Lines 5-6) with a track chain according to claim 1.
H. A. Knox et al. does not explicitly disclose that the track chain from claim 1 is guided around at least one drive pinion and several running wheels.
C. S. Busque teaches a track drive (see the driving mechanism in Figure 2) for a tracked vehicle (a tractor) with a track chain (55) which is guided around at least one drive pinion (25) and several running wheels (73).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the track drive of H. A. Knox et al. to be guided around at least one drive pinion and several running wheels, as taught by C. S. Busque, for the purpose of providing a structure that supports the track chain during operation.
Regarding claim 20, H. A. Knox et al. in view of C. S. Busque discloses a tracked vehicle (Page 1 / Lines 5-6; H. A. Knox et al.) with a track drive according to claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buellesbach et al. (DE 3437484 C2) discloses a track that is comprised of a plurality of chain links, each chain link has a plurality of T-shaped recesses, each recess has a rod, each rod has a plurality of projections on an outer circumferential surface, and two adjacent chain links are connected to each other via a fiber loop that wraps around two adjacent rods and are located between projections on each rod.
Gerlach et al. (GB 1,027,227 A) discloses a track for a land vehicle, and the track has a plurality of traction aids that protrude from bodies that form the track.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 6AM-2:00PM 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, John Olszewski can be reached at (571)272-2706. 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.
/ADAM D ROGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617