DETAILED ACTION
This is a response to Application # 18/821,974 filed on August 30, 2024 in which claims 1-20 were presented for examination.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, which are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed December 12, 2024; March 4, 2025; and March 18, 2026 comply with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. They have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. § 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. §§ 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(g), which requires “[t]he least restrictive claim should be presented as claim number 1” (emphasis added). See also, MPEP § 608.01(i)). In the present application, the claim presented as claim number 15 is the least restrictive claim of the independent claims and claim 1 is the most restrictive claim of the independent claims.
This objection will be held in abeyance upon Applicant’s request.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 of this title, 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. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 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 1-3 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al., US Publication 2020/0319621 (hereinafter Roy) in view of Cooper, US Patent 10,879,727 (hereinafter Cooper).
Regarding claim 1, Roy discloses a pool automation controller for measuring power consumption of pool or spa equipment associated with a pool or spa, comprising “one or more inductance coils configured to measure a current induced by an alternating-current (“AC”) electrical input; (Roy ¶¶ 242, 526) where data from measured devices, such as a solenoid (i.e., inductance coils, Roy ¶ 242), includes alternative current (“AC”) electrical input. (Roy ¶ 526). Additionally, Roy discloses “one or more control devices configured to control power directed to one or more pieces of pool or spa equipment electrically connected to the AC electrical input” (Roy ¶ 105) where the pool hub can control the power directed to the pool equipment. Further, Roy discloses “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, the one or more processors configured to execute processor-executable instructions stored in the non-transitory computer-readable media.” (Roy ¶ 98). Moreover, Roy discloses “perform operations including: identifying a first piece of pool or spa equipment based on a status of a first control device” (Roy ¶ 346) where the pool controller may identify any device using (i.e., based on) an amount of power that exceeds a predefined setpoint (i.e., a status of a first control device). Likewise, Roy discloses “receiving information about one or more first induced currents from the one or more inductance coils” (Roy ¶ 526) by sensing the AC current. Roy also discloses “determining a first power consumption by the first piece of pool or spa equipment …” (Roy ¶ 149) by determining the pump power consumption. Finally, Roy discloses “outputting the first power consumption” (Roy ¶ 150) by reporting (i.e., outputting) the power consumption to a user, pool professional, or manufacturer.
Although Roy discloses both determining power consumption and detecting currents, it does not appear to explicitly disclose “determining a first power consumption by the first piece of pool or spa equipment based on the one or more first induced currents.”
However, Cooper discloses a method for measuring electrical current using an inductor (Cooper col. 25, ll. 3-20), including the step of “determining a first power consumption by the first piece of … equipment based on the one or more first induced currents” (Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6; col. 25, ll. 42-46) where the current is used to calculate the load (Cooper col. 25, ll. 42-46), which itself is used to generate load parameters such as wattage consumption. (Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6).
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention would have recognized that when Cooper was combined with Roy, the determined power consumption of the pool or spa equipment of Roy would be determined based on the current, as taught by Cooper. Therefore, the combination of Roy and Cooper at least teaches and/or suggests the claimed limitation “determining a first power consumption by the first piece of pool or spa equipment based on the one or more first induced currents,” rendering it obvious.
Roy and Cooper are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of determining device power consumption.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roy and Cooper before him or her to modify the power consumption determination of Roy to include the power consumption determination based on the one or more induced currents of Cooper.
The motivation/rationale for doing so would have been that of simple substitution. See KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (U.S. 2007) and MPEP § 2143(I)(B). Roy differs from the claimed invention because it is silent on the manner in which the power consumption is determined. Further, Cooper teaches that determining power consumption based on a current was well known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have predictably substituted the specific method for determining power consumption of Cooper for generic recitation of determining power consumption of Roy because both determine power consumption and Roy must necessarily use some manner of determining power consumption.
Regarding claim 15, it merely recites the method performed by the pool automation controller of claim 1. The method comprises performing the various functions. The combination of Roy and Cooper comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 15 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, it merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium for embodying the pool automation controller of claim 1. The medium comprises merely computer software modules for performing the various functions. The combination of Roy and Cooper comprises computer software modules for performing the same functions. Thus, claim 20 is rejected using the same rationale set forth in the above rejection for claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “wherein the one or more control devices include an electromechanical relay for operating a remote switch” (Roy ¶ 105) where the pool hub, which is remote from the pool components, may include relays to control those components.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “wherein the one or more control devices include a digital controller for operating a remote switch” (Roy ¶ 447) where a GUI (i.e., a digital controller) may be used to operate the remote device.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “a plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment are electrically connected to the AC electrical input” (Roy ¶ 102 and Fig. 5). Further, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “determining the first power consumption by the first piece of pool or spa equipment based on the one or more first induced current comprises: outputting a first command to the one or more control devices to cause all of the plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment other than the first piece of pool or spa equipment to be unpowered by the electrical input” (Roy ¶¶ 141, 194, 226 , 242, 282) by disclosing that the pump (Roy ¶ 141), auxiliary pump (Roy ¶ 194), heater (Roy ¶ 226), lighting (Roy ¶ 242), and cleaners (Roy ¶ 282) may all be individually turned on or off, which would include situations in which all but one were turned off. Moreover, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “measuring the one or more first induced currents” (Roy ¶ 526) by sensing the AC current. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require that the current is measured as a result of the previous limitation, but only requires that they are both capable of occurring. Finally, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “computing the first power consumption of the first piece of pool or spa equipment using the one or more first induced currents” (Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6; col. 25, ll. 42-46) where the current is used to calculate the load (Cooper col. 25, ll. 42-46), which itself is used to generate load parameters such as wattage consumption. (Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “outputting a second command to the one or more control devices to cause the first piece of pool or spa equipment to be unpowered by the electrical input; outputting a third command to the one or more control devices to cause a second piece of pool or spa equipment to be powered by the electrical input; outputting a fourth command to the one or more control devices to cause all other pieces of pool or spa equipment other than the second piece of pool or spa equipment to be unpowered by the electrical input” (Roy ¶¶ 141, 194, 226 , 242, 282) by disclosing that the pump (Roy ¶ 141), auxiliary pump (Roy ¶ 194), heater (Roy ¶ 226), lighting (Roy ¶ 242), and cleaners (Roy ¶ 282) may all be individually turned on or off, which would include situations in which the first device is turned off and the second device is turned on, and the remaining devices are also turned off. Further, the combination of Roy and Cooper “determining a second power consumption of the second piece of pool or spa equipment based on one or more second induced currents” (Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6; col. 25, ll. 42-46) where the current is used to calculate the load (Cooper col. 25, ll. 42-46), which itself is used to generate load parameters such as wattage consumption. (Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require that the current is measured as a result of the previous limitation, but only requires that they are both capable of occurring.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “a plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment are electrically connected to the AC electrical input.” (Roy ¶ 102 and Fig. 5). Further, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “determining the first power consumption by the first piece of pool or spa equipment based on the one or more first induced current comprises: outputting a first command to the one or more control devices to cause all of the plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment to be powered by the AC electrical input” (Roy ¶¶ 141, 194, 226 , 242, 282) by disclosing that the pump (Roy ¶ 141), auxiliary pump (Roy ¶ 194), heater (Roy ¶ 226), lighting (Roy ¶ 242), and cleaners (Roy ¶ 282) may all be individually turned on or off, which would include situations in which all devices were turned off. Moreover, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “measuring one or more second induced currents” (Roy ¶ 526) by sensing the AC current. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require that the current is measured as a result of the previous limitation, but only requires that they are both capable of occurring. Likewise, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “outputting a second command to the one or more control devices to cause the first piece of pool or spa equipment to be unpowered by the AC electrical input” (Roy ¶¶ 141, 194, 226 , 242, 282) by disclosing that the pump (Roy ¶ 141), auxiliary pump (Roy ¶ 194), heater (Roy ¶ 226), lighting (Roy ¶ 242), and cleaners (Roy ¶ 282) may all be individually turned on or off, which would include situations in which the first device was turned on. The combination of Roy and Cooper also discloses “measuring the one or more first induced currents” (Roy ¶ 526) by sensing the AC current. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require that the current is measured as a result of the previous limitation, but only requires that they are both capable of occurring. Finally, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “computing the first power consumption of the first piece of pool or spa equipment using a difference between the one or more second induced currents and the one or more first induced currents” (Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6; col. 25, ll. 42-46) where the current is used to calculate the load (Cooper col. 25, ll. 42-46), which itself is used to generate load parameters such as wattage consumption. (Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not affirmatively require the step of calculating a difference between the second induced current and the first induced current, but merely that a difference is used for the first power consumption value. In a fully functioning system, the first current value when everything was off would be 0 and, therefore, the first current value when only the first device is on is a difference between that value and 0.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claims 1 and 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “configuring the first piece of pool or spa equipment to operate in a first mode of operation” (Roy ¶ 141) by disclosing a variety of modes that the equipment may be operated in, as controlled by a user. Further, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses determining a second power consumption based on one or more second induced currents while the first piece of pool or spa equipment is operating in the first mode of operation” (Roy ¶ 149 and Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6; col. 25, ll. 42-46) by repeating the steps of claim 1 for the first mode of operation. Moreover, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “configuring the first piece of pool or spa equipment to operate in a second mode of operation” (Roy ¶ 141) by disclosing a variety of modes that the equipment may be operated in, as controlled by a user. Likewise, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “determining a third power consumption based on one or more third induced currents while the first piece of pool or spa equipment is operating in the second mode of operation” (Roy ¶ 149 and Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6; col. 25, ll. 42-46) by repeating the steps of claim 1 for the second mode of operation. Finally, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “determining a power consumption profile of the first mode of operation based on a difference between the second power consumption and the third power consumption” (Roy ¶ 141) where the modes are connected to operating profiles.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “wherein the first piece of pool or spa equipment is a heater, a light, a cleaner, or a circulation pump” (Roy ¶ 141) where the first piece of pool equipment include at least a light, a cleaner, or a circulation pump.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “wherein a plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment are electrically connected to the AC electrical input” (Roy Fig. 7) where the pool equipment is shown to be connected to the power supply, which may be an AC input as discussed above. Further, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “the operations further comprise: determining a power consumption measurement plan comprising instructions, each instruction including at least one command to the one or more control devices to power or remove power from a particular piece of pool or spa equipment of the plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment from the AC electrical input to enable a power consumption measurement; and executing the power consumption measurement plan to cause a power consumption measurement for each of the plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment” (Roy ¶ 141) by detailing various plans, such as lowering the speed of the pump and measuring the power consumption, as discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 12 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “the operations further comprising combining the power consumption measurement for each of the plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment to compute an aggregate power consumption measurement” (Cooper col. 8, ll. 57-59) where the total load is made up of the separate, individual loads.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “responsive to the first power consumption exceeding a predetermined threshold, outputting a command to the one or more control devices to cause the first piece of pool or spa equipment to be unpowered by the AC electrical input” (Roy ¶¶ 149, 369) by disclosing that when power consumption is determined to be greater than a predetermined threshold, command is issued to alert the user (Roy ¶ 149), and further disclosing that the user may have set the system to always turn off in a state of reduced functionality. (Roy ¶ 369). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from Roy, that system may be turned off (i.e., unpowered) automatically when the power consumption is greater than the predetermined threshold, which is a state of reduced functionality.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “determining the first power consumption by the first connected piece of pool or spa equipment based on the one or more first induced current comprises: outputting a first command to one or more control devices, including the first control device, to cause all pieces of pool or spa equipment other than the first connected piece of pool or spa equipment to be unpowered by the AC electrical input” (Roy ¶¶ 141, 194, 226 , 242, 282) by disclosing that the pump (Roy ¶ 141), auxiliary pump (Roy ¶ 194), heater (Roy ¶ 226), lighting (Roy ¶ 242), and cleaners (Roy ¶ 282) may all be individually turned on or off, which would include situations in which all devices were turned off. Further, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “measuring the one or more first induced currents” (Roy ¶ 526) by sensing the AC current. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require that the current is measured as a result of the previous limitation, but only requires that they are both capable of occurring. Likewise, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “the method further comprising: outputting a second command to the one or more control devices to cause the first connected piece of pool or spa equipment to be unpowered by the AC electrical input; outputting a third command to the one or more control devices to cause a second connected piece of pool or spa equipment to be powered by the AC electrical input” (Roy ¶¶ 141, 194, 226 , 242, 282) by disclosing that the pump (Roy ¶ 141), auxiliary pump (Roy ¶ 194), heater (Roy ¶ 226), lighting (Roy ¶ 242), and cleaners (Roy ¶ 282) may all be individually turned on or off, which would include situations in which the first device is turned off and the second device is turned on, and the remaining devices are also turned off. Finally, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “determining a second power consumption of the second connected piece of pool or spa equipment based on one or more second induced currents” (Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6; col. 25, ll. 42-46) where the current is used to calculate the load (Cooper col. 25, ll. 42-46), which itself is used to generate load parameters such as wattage consumption. (Cooper col. 21, l. 33-col. 22, l. 6). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim does not require that the current is measured as a result of the previous limitation, but only requires that they are both capable of occurring.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 15 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “determining a power consumption measurement plan comprising instructions, each instruction including at least one command to one or more control devices, including the first control device, to power or remove power from a particular piece of pool or spa equipment of the plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment from the AC electrical input to enable a power consumption measurement; executing the power consumption measurement plan to cause a power consumption measurement for each of the plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment” (Roy ¶ 141) by detailing various plans, such as lowering the speed of the pump and measuring the power consumption, as discussed above. Further, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses “combining the power consumption measurement for each of the plurality of pieces of pool or spa equipment to compute an aggregate power consumption measurement” (Cooper col. 8, ll. 57-59) where the total load is made up of the separate, individual loads.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roy in view of Cooper, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kates, US Publication 2009/0211986 (hereinafter Kates).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper does not appear to explicitly disclose the type of electrical system used and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “the AC electrical input is a split-phase AC electrical input comprising two hot wires and a neutral wire; and each of the two hot wires has a corresponding inductance coil.”
However, Kates discloses a pool automation controller wherein “the AC electrical input is a split-phase AC electrical input comprising two hot wires and a neutral wire” (Kates ¶ 57) by disclosing double pole breakers, which are known to include a neutral wire, in a split-phase system including two hot lines.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that each hot wire in a double pole breaker receives two 120 volt inputs in order to produce 240 volts and that, therefore, each hot wire is connected to a corresponding current source; otherwise, each hot wire would produce 240 volts itself. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior would have recognized that when Kates was combined with Roy and Cooper, that the current source of the hot wires of Kates would be the inductance coils of Roy and Cooper. Thus, the combination of Roy, Cooper, and Kates at least teach and/or suggest the claimed limitation “each of the two hot wires has a corresponding inductance coil,” rendering it obvious.
Roy, Cooper, and Kates are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of devices for measuring power consumption.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roy, Cooper, and Kates before him or her to modify the power consumption monitoring of Roy and Cooper to include the split-phase AC electrical input of Kates.
The motivation for doing so would have been that split-phase AC systems are well-known in the art to be cost effective and provide good efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of the combination of Roy, Cooper and Kates discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy, Cooper and Kates discloses “further comprising a processing subsystem, the processing subsystem comprising: an amplifier for each of the one or more inductance coil” (Cooper col. 7, l. 61-col. 8, l. 16) by boosting (i.e., amplifying) the power source. Further, the combination of Roy, Cooper and Kates discloses “a digitizer” (Roy ¶ 98) where the analog-to-digital converter is a digitizer. Finally, the combination of Roy, Cooper and Kates discloses “wherein the information about the one or more first induced currents comprises a measurement of the current in each phase of the split-phase AC electrical input” (Kates 75) by providing the relationship between the current and the phase.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Roy and Cooper discloses the limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, the combination of Roy and Cooper does not appear to explicitly disclose the type of electrical system used and, therefore, does not appear to explicitly disclose “t the AC electrical input is a single-phase AC electrical input comprising a hot wire and a neutral wire; the hot wire has a corresponding inductance coil.”
However, Kates discloses a pool automation controller wherein “the AC electrical input is a single-phase AC electrical input comprising a hot wire and a neutral wire” (Kates ¶ 89) by disclosing the use of a single-phase system with an input (i.e., a hot wire) and a neutral wire.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the hot wire in a the hot wire in an electric circuit is connected to a current source; otherwise, each hot wire would produce no voltage. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior would have recognized that when Kates was combined with Roy and Cooper, that the current source of the hot wire of Kates would be the inductance coils of Roy and Cooper. Thus, the combination of Roy, Cooper, and Kates at least teach and/or suggest the claimed limitation “e the hot wire has a corresponding inductance coil,” rendering it obvious.
Roy, Cooper, and Kates are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor,” namely that of devices for measuring power consumption.
Prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roy, Cooper, and Kates before him or her to modify the power consumption monitoring of Roy and Cooper to include the split-phase AC electrical input of Kates.
The motivation for doing so would have been that single-phase AC systems are well-known in the art to be cost effective and easier to implement than more complex systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R DYER whose telephone number is (571)270-3790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached on 571-270-3832. 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.
/ANDREW R DYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights