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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 18, 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 claim rejections (pages 7-8) have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as being used in the current rejection.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 12-14, and 17 recite a form of the limitation “the at least one liquid replenishing port being disposed…”; the examiner understands this limitation to require all of the at least one liquid replenishing port to be disposed as claimed. Note similar claim language in, for example, claim 2: “the at least one liquid replenishing port includes a liquid replenishing port opposed to the working deck…” which makes it clear that only one of the at least one liquid replenishing port needs to be disposed as claimed.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “tip” should be replaced with “top” in the phrase “in a top view of the work machine”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-3, 7-9, 12-14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the word “being” should be removed from the phrase “the first foothold having a working deck”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12, 14, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu (JP-2002088818-A) in view of NAKAMURA (DE-112013000217-B4 (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience).
Regarding Claim 1, Komatsu teaches a work machine (Hydraulic Excavator 10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a vehicular body (Upper Slewing Body 15, Fig. 1) having a first foothold (Step 12, Fig. 1); and
a traveling apparatus (Lower Traveling Body 1, Fig. 1) attached to the vehicular body (15), wherein
the traveling apparatus (1) having a crawler belt (as illustrated in Fig. 1),
the first foothold (12) being located above the crawler belt (at least one instance of Step 12 being above the illustrated crawler belt of Lower Traveling Body 1, Fig. 1),
the vehicular body (15) being provided with at least one liquid replenishing port (Oil Filler Cap 6a, Fig. 2- note: erroneously labeled “Fuel Filler Cap 6a” in Para. [0040] and Fig. 2, see Para. [0023] and note its location on Hydraulic Oil Tank 6 in Fig. 2; Coolant Refill Cap 33a, Fig. 2, and Fuel Filler Cap 8a, Fig. 2), and
the vehicular body (15) has a cab (Operator’s Cab 7, Fig. 2) and {at least one} liquid replenishing port (6a) is disposed between the cab (7) and the first foothold (12) in a {top} view of the work machine (Oil Filler Cap 6a being disposed between Step 12 and Operator’s Cab 7, Fig. 2).
Komatsu does not teach that each of the at least one liquid replenishing port is between the cab and the first foothold.
NAKAMURA teaches, in another work machine (Hydraulic Excavator 100, Fig. 1), a plurality of liquid replenishing ports (page 3, para. 12: “The hydraulic excavator…” teaches a filler neck for a Reducing Agent Tank 13 and a Fuel Tank 14) that are between a foothold (Stage 20a, Figs. 4 and 5) and a cab (Cabin 5, Fig. 2; where Stage 20a is understood to be adjacent to Handrail 21 such that the filler necks of Reducing Agent Tank 13 and Fuel Tank 14 are understood to be between Cabin 5 and Stage 20a).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the at least one liquid replenishing port such that they are each between the cab and the first foothold, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claim 2, Komatsu further teaches that the first foothold (12) having a working deck (Deck 11 and Inspection Passage 9, Figs. 1 and 2),
in a top view of the work machine (Fig. 2), the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) being disposed in an area of the vehicular body (15) inner than the working deck (Oil Filler Cap 6a, Coolant Refill Cap 33a, and Fuel Filler Cap 8a being disposed closer to a center area, defined by a centerline of Work Implement 4, of Upper Slewing Body 15 than at least a portion of Deck 11, Fig. 2), and
in the top view (Fig. 2) the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) includes a liquid replenishing port (6a) opposed to the working deck (9, 11) in a vehicular widthwise direction (up/ down in Fig. 2) of the vehicular body (Oil Filler Cap 6a being disposed above- Fig. 2/ to the right of- in a vehicular width direction- at least a portion of Deck 11, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Komatsu further teaches that the first foothold (12) having a working deck (Deck 11 and Inspection Passage 9, Figs. 1 and 2),
in a top view of the work machine (Fig. 2), the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) being disposed in an area of the vehicular body (15) inner than the working deck (Oil Filler Cap 6a, Coolant Refill Cap 33a, and Fuel Filler Cap 8a being disposed closer to a center area, defined by a centerline of Work Implement 4, of Upper Slewing Body 15 than at least a portion of Deck 11, Fig. 2), and
in the top view the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) includes a liquid replenishing port (8a) opposed to the working deck (9, 11) in a frontward/rearward direction (left/ right, Fig. 2) of the vehicular body (Fuel Filler Cap 8a being disposed to the left of- Fig. 2/ forward of- in a vehicular frontward/ rearward direction- at least a portion of Inspection Passage 9 and Deck 11, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Komatsu further teaches that the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) includes a first liquid replenishing port (Oil Filler Cap 6a), a second liquid replenishing port (Coolant Refill Cap 33a), and a third liquid replenishing port (Fuel Filler Cap 8a), and
in the top view (Fig. 2), the third liquid replenishing port (8a) is disposed in an area sandwiched between the first liquid replenishing port (6a) and the second liquid replenishing port (Fuel Filler Cap 8a being disposed in an area- Fuel Tank 8- which is disposed between Oil Filler Cap 6a and Coolant Refill Cap 33a).
Regarding Claim 5, Komatsu further teaches that the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) includes a first liquid replenishing port (Oil Filler Cap 6a), a second liquid replenishing port (Coolant Refill Cap 33a), and a third liquid replenishing port (Fuel Filler Cap 8a), and
in the top view (Fig. 2), a center of an opening of the first liquid replenishing port (6a), a center of an opening of the second liquid replenishing port (33a), and a center of an opening of the third liquid replenishing port (8a) are offset from one another in both the vehicular widthwise direction (up/ down in Fig. 2) of the vehicular body and the frontward/rearward direction (left/ right, Fig. 2) of the vehicular body (Oil Filler Cap 6a, Coolant Refill Cap 33a, and Fuel Filler Cap 8a each being offset from each other in both the width and frontward/rearward directions, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Komatsu further teaches that the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) includes at least one of a replenishing port for fuel for the work machine (Fuel Filler Cap 8a), and a replenishing port for a lubricating oil for a power line of the work machine (Oil Filler Cap 6a).
Komatsu does not teach a replenishing port for a reducing agent.
NAKAMURA teaches, in another work machine (Hydraulic Excavator 100, Fig. 1), a replenishing port for a reducing agent for a selective catalytic reduction device of the work machine (page 3, para. 12: “The hydraulic excavator…” teaches a filler neck for a Reducing Agent Tank 13)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Komatsu and NAKAMURA in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Komatsu’s work machine to include a replenishing port for a reducing agent as suggested by NAKAMURA. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing an emissions controlling agent and access for its replenishment that would beneficially help to make the machine compliant with regulations of various jurisdictions, and therefore marketable in such jurisdictions. It would further have been obvious to arrange the replenishing port for the reducing agent inner than a working deck, as required by claim 1 and suggested by the arrangements of the liquid replenishing ports of Komatsu (6a, 33a, 8a), as doing so would advantageously provide protection from external hazards often present in the worksites of a work machine, which would beneficially make a more robust machine.
Regarding Claim 10, Komatsu further teaches that an outer end (“12-OE”, Fig. 2 Annotated) of the first foothold (12) most distant from a widthwise center (“C/L”, Fig. 2 Annotated) of the vehicular body (15) in a vehicular widthwise direction (up/ down in Fig. 2) of the vehicular body (15) is located closer to the widthwise center (C/L) of the vehicular body (15) than an outer end (“OE”, Fig. 2 Annotated) of the work machine (10) most distant from the widthwise center (C/L) of the vehicular body (15) in the vehicular widthwise direction (up/ down in Fig. 2) of the vehicular body is.
PNG
media_image1.png
744
837
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12, Komatsu further teaches that the first foothold (12) having a working deck (Deck 11 and Inspection Passage 9, Figs. 1 and 2),
in a top view of the work machine (Fig. 2), the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) being disposed in an area of the vehicular body (15) inner than the working deck (Oil Filler Cap 6a, Coolant Refill Cap 33a, and Fuel Filler Cap 8a being disposed closer to a center area, defined by a centerline of Work Implement 4, of Upper Slewing Body 15 than at least a portion of Deck 11, Fig. 2), and
the working deck (9, 11) is disposed at a left rear (bottom right, Fig. 2) or right rear (top right, Fig. 2) portion of the vehicular body (Deck 11 being disposed at a left rear/ bottom right- Fig. 2, of Upper Slewing Body 15).
Regarding Claim 14, Komatsu further teaches that the first foothold (12) having a working deck (Deck 11 and Inspection Passage 9, Figs. 1 and 2),
in a top view of the work machine (Fig. 2), the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) being disposed in an area of the vehicular body (15) inner than the working deck (Oil Filler Cap 6a, Coolant Refill Cap 33a, and Fuel Filler Cap 8a being disposed closer to a center area, defined by a centerline of Work Implement 4, of Upper Slewing Body 15 than at least a portion of Deck 11, Fig. 2),
the vehicular body (15) has a cab (Operator’s Cab 7, Fig. 2) and a second foothold (“FT2”, Fig. 2 Annotated) disposed above the crawler belt (1), the first foothold (12) has a passageway (“PSG”) extending from the working deck (11) to the second foothold (Passageway PSG being formed as a part of the uppermost instance of Step 12 and connecting a rearward- right, Fig. 2- portion of Deck 11 with Second Foothold FT2, Fig. 2 Annotated),
a first width of the working deck (the width of Deck 11 towards the rear- right, Fig. 2) in a vehicular widthwise direction (up/ down, Fig. 2) of the vehicular body is larger than a second width of the passageway (the width of Passageway PSG) in the vehicular widthwise direction of the vehicular body (the width of Deck 11 towards the rear being wider than the width of Passageway PSG as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated),
the cab (7) is provided with an entrance and exit (Door “DR”, Fig. 1 Annotated), and
the second foothold (FT2) is disposed in a vicinity of the entrance and exit (Second Foothold FT2 being near Door DR as understood by Fig. 1 Annotated and Fig. 2 Annotated).
PNG
media_image2.png
518
721
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, Komatsu further teaches the first foothold (12) has an anti-fall structure (Railing “RLG”, Fig. 1 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 17, Komatsu further teaches that the first foothold (12) having a working deck (Deck 11 and Inspection Passage 9, Figs. 1 and 2),
in a top view of the work machine (Fig. 2), the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) being disposed in an area of the vehicular body (15) inner than the working deck (Oil Filler Cap 6a, Coolant Refill Cap 33a, and Fuel Filler Cap 8a being disposed closer to a center area, defined by a centerline of Work Implement 4, of Upper Slewing Body 15 than at least a portion of Deck 11, Fig. 2),
the vehicular body (15) is provided with a member subject to maintenance (“MBR”, Fig. 2 Annotated; as nearly any part of a work machine would be subject to some sort of maintenance, for example a window is subject to washing, a metal body panel is subject to washing and repainting, etc.), and
in the top view, the member subject to maintenance (MBR) is disposed at a position spaced from any one of an inner edge (“IE”, Fig,. 2 Annotated) of the working deck, a front edge (“FE”, Fig. 2 Annotated) of the working deck (11), and a corner (“CNR”, Fig.2 Annotated) of the working deck (11) by a distance of 70 cm or less (any of a window, body panel, or other Member MBR being disposed within 70 cm of Inner Edge IE, Front Edge FE and Corner CNR as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated), and the corner (CNR) of the working deck is formed by the inner edge (IE) of the working deck and the front edge (FE) of the working deck.
Regarding Claim 18, Komatsu further teaches that the member subject to maintenance (MBR) is disposed at a height of 200 cm or less from the working deck (any of a window, body panel, or other Member MBR being disposed within a height of 200 cm from Deck 11 as understood by Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 Annotated).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu and NAKAMURA in view of Middlesworth (“A Step-by-Step Guide…”).
Regarding Claims 7, 8, and 9, (having similar limitations, differing as indicated below), Komatsu further teaches that the first foothold (12) having a working deck (Deck 11 and Inspection Passage 9, Figs. 1 and 2),
in a top view of the work machine (Fig. 2), the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) being disposed in an area of the vehicular body (15) inner than the working deck (Oil Filler Cap 6a, Coolant Refill Cap 33a, and Fuel Filler Cap 8a being disposed closer to a center area, defined by a centerline of Work Implement 4, of Upper Slewing Body 15 than at least a portion of Deck 11, Fig. 2), and
{in the top view (Fig. 2) [claim 7 only]}, the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) is disposed {at a position spaced from the working deck (as illustrated in Fig. 2) [claim 7]/ at a height from the working deck (as understood by Figs. 1 and 2) [claims 8 and claim 9]}.
Komatsu does not teach specific distances of at most 70 cm (claims 7 and 8) or at least 40 cm (claim 9).
Middlesworth teaches, in a related discussion of lifting in the workplace (Title and Subtitle), that a height from a floor (V, page 2) and a vertical distance from a worker’s body (H, page 2) are variables in determining a maximum lifting weight (Recommended Weight Limit RWL, page 2).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the height from a floor and a vertical distance from a worker’s body are directly correlated to a recommended weight limit, as taught by Middlesworth, which is a desirable characteristic of the arrangement of a liquid replenishing port of a work machine, which would require the lifting of a liquid container, (as a “result effective variable”, per MPEP 2143 and 2144.05-II-B). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed, to modify Komatsu’s work machine such that the at least one liquid replenishing port is disposed at a position spaced from the working deck by a distance of 70 cm or less according to claim 7 and at a height of 70 cm or less and 40 cm or more from the working deck according to claims 8 and 9. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu and NAKAMURA in view of Ushikubo (US-20140217700-A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Komatsu further teaches that the work machine (10) comprises a blade (Shovel, Abstract).
Komatsu does not teach that the blade is the outer end of the work machine.
Ushikubo teaches, in another work machine (Wheel Loader 1, Fig. 1), a blade (Bucket 42, Fig. 1) which extends past a vehicular body (Front 2 and Rear 3 Bodies, Fig. 2) in a vehicle width direction (up/ down, Fig. 2) such that it comprises an outer end of the work machine (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Komatsu, NAKAMURA, and Ushikubo in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Komatsu’s work machine to include such that the blade was the outer end of the work machine as suggested by Ushikubo. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a wide blade capable of moving larger amounts of material that would beneficially make a more productive machine.
Regarding Claim 20, Komatsu further teaches that the vehicular body has a cab, and an air conditioning unit (Air Conditioning Compressor 35, Para. [0028]) to condition air in the cab.
Komatsu does not teach an air filter for the cab.
Ushikubo teaches an air filter (Para. [0037] teaches an air-conditioner outside-air filter being disposed behind Access Door 5a, Fig. 1) for removing dust contained in external air taken into a cab (Cab 5, Fig. 1) by an air conditioning unit.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Komatsu, NAKAMURA, and Ushikubo in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Komatsu’s work machine to include an air filter for the cab as suggested by Ushikubo. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a means of cleaning the air of the cab that would beneficially make a more user-friendly machine. It would further be obvious to position the air filter within 70cm of the working deck as required by claim 17 because doing so would advantageously allow an operator to easily reach the air filter for maintenance or replacement with would beneficially make a more user-friendly machine.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu and NAKAMURA in view of Awesome (“Caterpillar 6060…”).
Regarding Claim 13, Komatsu further teaches that the first foothold (12) having a working deck (Deck 11 and Inspection Passage 9, Figs. 1 and 2),
in a top view of the work machine (Fig. 2), the at least one liquid replenishing port (6a, 33a, 8a) being disposed in an area of the vehicular body (15) inner than the working deck (Oil Filler Cap 6a, Coolant Refill Cap 33a, and Fuel Filler Cap 8a being disposed closer to a center area, defined by a centerline of Work Implement 4, of Upper Slewing Body 15 than at least a portion of Deck 11, Fig. 2), and
the work machine further comprising a climbing device (Steps 12, Fig. 2).
Komatsu does not teach that the climbing device is disposed behind the crawler belt and the working deck.
Awesome teaches, in another working machine (Face Shovel, Title), with a climbing device (“CD”, Time 1:07 Annotated) that is disposed behind a crawler belt (“CB”, Time 1:07 Annotated) and a working deck (“WD”, Time 1:07 Annotated; the Climbing Device CD being understood to extend downwards such that it would be behind Crawler Belt CB and Working Deck WD).
PNG
media_image3.png
878
1461
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Komatsu, NAKAMURA, and Awesome in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Komatsu’s work machine such that the climbing device is disposed behind the crawler belt and the working deck as suggested by Awesome. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of arranging a climbing device away from moving components such as the crawler that would beneficially make a safer machine.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu and NAKAMURA in view of Department of Energy (DOE) (“Human Factors Ergonomics Handbook…”).
Regarding Claim 15, Komatsu does not teach that the second width of the passageway is 300 mm or more.
DOE teaches, in in a related discussion of ergonomics of workspaces (Section 3.0 title, page 113), a minimum width of a walking space (Walking Width E., Fig. 3.1.2., page 117) as 300mm (being 0.30 m minimum in the table accompanying Fig. 3.1.2.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Komatsu, NAKAMURA, and DOE in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Komatsu’s work machine such that the second width of the passageway is 300 mm or more as suggested by DOE. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a passageway that was wide enough for comfortable walking passage that would beneficially make a more user-friendly machine.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu and NAKAMURA in view of Steben (US-20140174839-A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Komatsu further teaches that the vehicular body (15) has a cab (Operator’s Cab 7, Fig. 2), and the cab (7) is provided with a window (as illustrated in Fig. 2).
Komatsu does not teach a wiper rubber for wiping the window.
Steben teaches, in another work machine (vehicle 10, Fig. 1), a wiper rubber (Wiper 140, Fig. 41) for wiping a window.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Komatsu, NAKAMURA, and Steben in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Komatsu’s work machine to include a wiper rubber for wiping the window as suggested by Steben. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing an easy way of keeping an operator’s line of sight clean that would beneficially make a more user-friendly machine. It would further be obvious to position the wiper rubber within 70cm of a working deck as required by claim 17 because doing so would advantageously allow an operator to easily reach the wiper rubber for maintenance or replacement with would beneficially make a more user-friendly machine.
Conclusion
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 TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights