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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-18, directed to an apparatus/method for process sequence control for paint production line with changeover, classified in class G05B19, subclass41865: characterized by job scheduling, process planning, material flow.
II. Claims 19-20, directed to an apparatus for paint production line with product quality control, classified in class F17D, subclass 3/03: for controlling, signaling, or supervising the conveyance of several different products following one another in the same conduit.
Inventions II and I are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination - invention II as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination - invention I as claimed because the quality control process in invention II does not require the process sequence control with changeover in invention I. The subcombination - invention I has separate utility such as using the changeover time information for scheduling the paint products producing sequences.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
During a telephone conversation with Patrick Clunk on 06/22/2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the combination – invention I, claims 1-18. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10-12 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “wash type is full” that has typos, should be “wash type is full wash”.
Claim 10 recites “,” at end that has a typo, should be “.”.
Claim 11 recites “,;” at end of second paragraph that has a typo, should be “;”.
Claim 12 recites “a total changeover times” in last paragraph that has a typo, should be “a total changeover time”.
Claim 17 recites “further comprising” in first line that has typos, should be “comprising”.
Claim 18 missing “.” at the end.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
"control logic" in claims 14 and 17.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph 0024] of specification recites control logic 104 in Fig. 1.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 2-7, 11-12 and 16-18 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.
Claims 2, 3 and 16 recites wash type “no drain”, it is not clear what the “no drain” is referred to, the paint, the wash solution, or other liquid, and there is no definition described in the disclosure.
Claims 2, 5 and 16 recites wash type “simple wash” directs to a subjective term, and the specification does not provide some standard for measuring the scope of the term therefore render the claim indefinite. See MPEP § 2173.05(b).
Claims 11 and 12 recites “the first wash type” that lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 17 recites “and a third batch having a third” in line 9 that is an incomplete element. As a result, the recited “the third changeover code” in claims 17 and 18 lack antecedent basis. For examination purpose, in light of the reset claim elements in the same claim and in light of the disclosure, “and a third batch having a third” in line 9 is construed as “and a third batch having a third formula for producing a third product having a third changeover code”.
Regarding claims 3-7 and 18, dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent(s).
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.
(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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Monteiro “Implementation of Lean Methodologies in a Varnish Production Unit”.
Regarding claim 1, Monteiro teaches a method, comprising:
assigning changeover codes to paints based on characteristics of the paints (page 2 1.1.2, page 15 paragraph 2, page 20 3.2.4, and page 23 3.2.4.2, in the varnish production automatic line filling process, the varnishes are assigned three different types: Colorless, Colored, and Base colorless);
producing a first paint having a first characteristic in a line;
producing a second paint having a second characteristic in the line; and
performing a line changeover after producing the first paint and before producing the second paint (page 25 3.2.4.4, performing product setup i.e. “a line changeover” when there is a change in the product in the automatic line, i.e. “producing a first paint having a first characteristic in a line; producing a second paint having a second characteristic in the line; and “performing a line changeover after producing the first paint and before producing the second paint”), the line changeover comprises:
determining a wash type to be performed on the line based on a set of rules for comparing first characteristic with the second characteristic (page 25 3.2.4.4, the changeover setup requires washing depends on whether second product is a totally different product or the same product with a change in color i.e. “based on a set of rules for comparing first characteristic with the second characteristic”), and
selectively cleaning the line employing the determined wash type (page 25 3.2.4.4, the washing is performed depending on whether it is a careful wash, a quick wash, or no wash).
Regarding claim 2, Monteiro further teaches the wash type is selected from a group consisting of no drain (page 25 3.2.4.4 no wash, only bleed the tank and pull the next product), no wash (page 25 3.2.4.4 no wash), simple wash (page 25 3.2.4.4 quick wash), full wash (page 25 3.2.4.4 careful wash), and manual wash (page 41 last paragraph, washing of the tank is an external task by operator).
Regarding claim 3, Monteiro further teaches the selected wash type is no drain (page 25 3.2.4.4 no wash, only bleed the tank and pull the next product).
Regarding claim 4, Monteiro further teaches the selected wash type is no wash (page 25 3.2.4.4 no wash).
Regarding claim 5, Monteiro further teaches the selected wash type is simple wash (page 25 3.2.4.4 quick wash).
Regarding claim 6, Monteiro further teaches the selected wash type is full (page 25 3.2.4.4 careful wash).
Regarding claim 7, Monteiro further teaches the selected wash type is manual wash (page 41 last paragraph, washing of the tank is an external task by operator).
Regarding claim 8, Monteiro further teaches the characteristics comprises color (page 23 3.2.4.2, Colorless, Colored, and Base colorless).
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteiro as applied to claims 1-8 above, in view of CHOULET US 20150022832 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Monteiro does not explicitly further teach the characteristics comprises color and shade.
CHOULET explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the characteristics comprise color and shade ([0125] varnish with color, gloss and shade).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Monteiro to incorporate the teachings of CHOULET, because they all directed to paint product, to make the method wherein the characteristics comprises color and shade. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to recognize a change in the product, as Monteiro teaches in page 25 3.2.4.4.
Regarding claim 10, Monteiro in view of CHOULET further teaches the characteristics comprise color, shade, and gloss ([0125] varnish with color, gloss and shade).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Monteiro to incorporate the teachings of CHOULET, because they all directed to paint product, to make the method wherein the characteristics comprise color, shade, and gloss. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to recognize a change in the product, as Monteiro teaches in page 25 3.2.4.4.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteiro as applied to claims 1-8 above, in view of Boonkanok “Consumer Product Repetitive Production Planning with Color Sequence Wheel to Reduce Total Changeover Time”.
Regarding claim 11, Monteiro does not explicitly further teach:
producing a third paint having a third characteristic; determining a second wash type to be performed on the line based on a set of rules for comparing first characteristic with the third characteristic; determining a third wash type to be performed on the line based on a set of rules for comparing second characteristic with the third characteristic; determining a changeover time for the first wash type; determining a changeover time for the second wash type; determining a changeover time for the third wash type;
scheduling production of the first paint, second paint, and third paint based in an order that minimizes a total changeover time for producing the first paint, the second paint, and the third paint.
Boonkanok explicitly teaches in an analogous art:
PNG
media_image1.png
420
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
producing a third paint having a third characteristic; determining a second wash type to be performed on the line based on a set of rules for comparing first characteristic with the third characteristic; determining a third wash type to be performed on the line based on a set of rules for comparing second characteristic with the third characteristic; determining a changeover time for the first wash type; determining a changeover time for the second wash type; determining a changeover time for the third wash type (page 804 right column Fig. 5 and first paragraph, changeover time matrix is determined for 3 different color products with color change sequence-based changeover time);
PNG
media_image2.png
928
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
scheduling production of the first paint, second paint, and third paint based in an order that minimizes a total changeover time for producing the first paint, the second paint, and the third paint (page 802 Fig. 2 and page 803 last paragraph, calculating for each production pattern based on the changeover time matrix, and chose the one with minimum total changeover time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Monteiro to incorporate the teachings of Boonkanok, because they all directed to colored product, to make the method wherein select producing sequence of the colored product based on the product changeover time matrix. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to minimize the overall changeover time, as Boonkanok teaches in page 803 last paragraph.
Regarding claim 12, Monteiro in view of Boonkanok further teaches:
producing at least one additional paint having a third characteristic; determining a plurality of additional wash types to be performed based on comparing the characteristics of the at least one additional paint with the first characteristic, the second characteristic, and with each other; determining a changeover time between the first wash type and the plurality of different wash types; scheduling production of the first paint, second paint, and at least one additional paint based on an order that minimizes a total changeover time for producing the first paint, the second paint, and the at least one additional paint (page 804 right column Fig. 5 and first paragraph, and page 806 right column first paragraph, changeover time matrix is determined for 3 different color products with color change sequence-based changeover time, the changeover time is based on the color change sequence-based cleaning process i.e. “wash type”; page 802 Fig. 2 and page 803 last paragraph, calculating for each production pattern based on the changeover time matrix, and chose the one with minimum total changeover time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Monteiro to incorporate the teachings of Boonkanok, because they all directed to colored product, to make the method wherein scheduling production of multiple products are based on the product changeover time matrix, the changeover time are based on the wash type of changeover. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to minimize the overall changeover time, as Boonkanok teaches in page 803 last paragraph.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteiro as applied to claims 1-8 above, in view of Melcher US 20180029062 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Monteiro does not explicitly further teach priming fill lines with the second paint prior to the second paint being tested; holding the second paint in the fill lines until testing is completed; and releasing the second paint from the fill lines upon approval based on the tests.
Melcher explicitly teaches in an analogous art that priming fill lines with the second paint prior to the second paint being tested; holding the second paint in the fill lines until testing is completed; and releasing the second paint from the fill lines upon approval based on the tests ([0004] [0041] – l0045] when changing the color, the color line is loaded with new paint, the valve to the dispense nozzle is still closed until the fresh paint through the return vale is vilified with either an optical sensor or specially designed return valve i.e. “upon approval based on the tests”, then the return valve is closed to allow the new paint proceed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Monteiro to incorporate the teachings of Melcher, because they all directed to paint product, to make the method wherein priming fill lines with the second paint prior to the second paint being tested; holding the second paint in the fill lines until testing is completed; and releasing the second paint from the fill lines upon approval based on the tests. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to change to new paint in the product line, as Melcher teaches in [0045].
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteiro in view of Chishima US 20230297039 A1.
Regarding claim 14, it is directed to an apparatus of carrying out the method with similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. Since Monteiro teaches the claimed method, he teaches the apparatus for implementing the method steps.
In addition, Monteiro further teaches the production line including a tank where materials are processed to create a product (page 41 filling line including tanks);
Monteiro does not explicitly further teach control logic coupled with the tank and operable to control the operations in the tank; and a database coupled with the control logic;
Chishima explicitly teaches in an analogous art that control logic coupled with the tank and operable to control the operations in the tank; and a database coupled with the control logic (Fig. 4 [0071] control unit coupled with database).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Monteiro to incorporate the teachings of Chishima, because they all directed to production line changeover, to make the apparatus wherein control logic coupled with the tank and operable to control the operations in the tank; and a database coupled with the control logic. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide automatic filling line, as Monteiro teaches in page 16 paragraph 2.
Regarding claim 15, Monteiro further teaches wherein the first and second products are the same (page 23 3.2.4.2, they are all varnishes).
Claim 16 recites similar limitations to that of claim 2 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteiro in view of Chishima and Boonkanok.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations to that of claim 14 therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Monteiro does not further teach:
the control logic is operable to receive a plurality of batch productions requests that comprises a first batch having a first formula for producing a first product having a first changeover code; a second batch having a second formula for producing a second product having a second changeover code, and a third batch having a third formula for producing a third product having a third changeover code and a third batch having a third formula for producing a third product having a third changeover code; the control logic is operable employ the database to determine a first wash type based on a first sequence of the first changeover code and the second change over code, a second wash type based on a sequence of the second changeover code and the third changeover code, a third wash type for a third sequence of the third changeover code and the first changeover code, a fourth wash type based on a sequence of the second changeover code and the first changeover code, a fifth wash type based on a sequence of the third changeover and the second changeover code, and a sixth wash type based on a sequence of the third changeover code and the first changeover code; and
the control logic is operable to selectively scheduling production of the first batch, second batch, and third batch based by selecting from the first sequence, second sequence, third sequence, fourth sequence and fifth sequences a sequence that reduces total changeover time for producing the first product, the second product, and the third product based on the first wash type, second wash type, third wash type fourth wash type, fifth wash type, and sixth wash type.
Boonkanok explicitly teaches in an analogous art:
the control logic is operable to receive a plurality of batch productions requests that comprises a first batch having a first formula for producing a first product having a first changeover code; a second batch having a second formula for producing a second product having a second changeover code, and a third batch having a third formula for producing a third product having a third changeover code and a third batch having a third formula for producing a third product having a third changeover code; the control logic is operable employ the database to determine a first wash type based on a first sequence of the first changeover code and the second change over code, a second wash type based on a sequence of the second changeover code and the third changeover code, a third wash type for a third sequence of the third changeover code and the first changeover code, a fourth wash type based on a sequence of the second changeover code and the first changeover code, a fifth wash type based on a sequence of the third changeover and the second changeover code, and a sixth wash type based on a sequence of the third changeover code and the first changeover code (page 804 right column Fig. 5 and first paragraph, and page 806 right column first paragraph, changeover time matrix is determined for 3 different color products with color change sequence-based changeover time, the changeover time is based on the color change sequence-based cleaning process i.e. “wash type”); and
the control logic is operable to selectively scheduling production of the first batch, second batch, and third batch based by selecting from the first sequence, second sequence, third sequence, fourth sequence and fifth sequences a sequence that reduces total changeover time for producing the first product, the second product, and the third product based on the first wash type, second wash type, third wash type fourth wash type, fifth wash type, and sixth wash type (page 802 Fig. 2 and page 803 last paragraph, calculating for each production pattern based on the changeover time matrix, and chose the one with minimum total changeover time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Monteiro to incorporate the teachings of Chishima and Boonkanok, because they all directed to colored product, to make the method wherein control logic coupled with the tank and operable to control the operations in the tank; and a database coupled with the control logic; and scheduling production of multiple products are based on the product changeover time matrix, the changeover time are based on the wash type of changeover. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to provide automatic filling line, as Monteiro teaches in page 16 paragraph 2, and minimize the overall changeover time, as Boonkanok teaches in page 803 last paragraph.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monteiro in view of Chishima and Boonkanok as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of CHOULET.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Monteiro, Chishima and Boonkanok does not explicitly teach the first product is a first paint having a first color, a first shade, a first gloss, and the first changeover code is based on the first color, the first shade, and the first gloss; wherein the second product is a second paint having a second color, a second shade, and a second gloss, the second changeover code is based on the second color, the second shade, and the second gloss; and the third product is based having a third paint having a third color, a third shade, and a third gloss, and the third changeover code is based on the third color, the third shade, and the third gloss.
CHOULET explicitly teaches in an analogous art that the first product is a first paint having a first color, a first shade, a first gloss, and the first changeover code is based on the first color, the first shade, and the first gloss; wherein the second product is a second paint having a second color, a second shade, and a second gloss, the second changeover code is based on the second color, the second shade, and the second gloss; and the third product is based having a third paint having a third color, a third shade, and a third gloss, and the third changeover code is based on the third color, the third shade, and the third gloss ([0125] varnish characteristic including color, gloss and shade).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Monteiro, Chishima and Boonkanok to incorporate the teachings of CHOULET, because they all directed to colored product, to make the method wherein the characteristics comprise color, shade, and gloss. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification so as to recognize a change in the product, as Monteiro teaches in page 25 3.2.4.4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bryson THE CONTROL OF QUALITT IN THE MANUFACTURE OF PAINT teaches paint characteristics including shade and gloss.
DATTARAY US 20230237397 A1 teaches paint shop production line changeover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tang whose telephone number is (571)272-7437. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4 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, Thomas Lee can be reached on (571)272-3667. 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.
/M.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights