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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 18/835,450 filled on 08/02/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3, 6 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 cites the phrase “a work piece” on lines 7 and 11. The phrase “a work piece” on line 11 should apparently be “[[a]]the work piece” as it is referred to the same workpiece as cited on line 7. Claim 3 is objected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “clamping or suction actions” should apparently be “clamping actions or suction actions”. Claim 20 is objected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “suction actions” should apparently be “the suction actions” as the phrase “suction actions” is cited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “clamping actions” should apparently be “the clamping actions” as the phrase “clamping actions” is cited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Abstract/Specification Objections
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 limitation(s) is/are: “spray component” in Claims 1, 12, 13-14 and 20, “linear actuator” in claims 5, 8, 11, “automatic feeder mechanism” in claim 19, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-12, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames et al. (US 2023/0226695) (hereinafter Ames) in view of Zhao et al. (CN110733049, this reference is from IDS filed on 08/02/2024, and attached English translate of CN110733049 is used for claim mapping).
Claim 1. Ames teaches a multifunctional end effector robotic system (See Para. [0040]-[0042], discloses “different types of tools attached to end-effector to perform different function, such as nailing, glueing, welding , foaming”) comprising:
a mounting plate of a multifunctional end effector that is configured to couple to an arm of a robot (See Para. [0041]-[0042], discloses “tool changer is attached to one end of the robot, where the tool changer can be configured to receive tools such as a gripper tool or end effector (e.g., a clamping tool or clamp, a vacuum gripper, etc.), an alignment tool, a measuring tool (e.g., laser range finder, depth sensor , etc.), a joining or coupling tool (e.g., a nailing tool, a gluing tool, a welding, etc.), an encapsulation tool (e.g., a wrapping tool, a sheathing tool, a trimming tool, etc.), a cutting tool (e.g., a router, a saw, jigsaw etc.), a finishing tool (e.g., a jointer, a planer, etc.), a painting tool (e.g., a paint application machine, etc.), a power tool, any other tool known in the art, or any combination thereof.”):
a plurality of functional components of the multifunctional end effector (See Para. [0042], “multifunction tools attached to the one end of the robot, such as a gripper tool or end effector (e.g., a clamping tool or clamp, a vacuum gripper, etc.), an alignment tool, a measuring tool (e.g., laser range finder, depth sensor , etc.), a joining or coupling tool (e.g., a nailing tool, a gluing tool, a welding, etc.), an encapsulation tool (e.g., a wrapping tool, a sheathing tool, a trimming tool, etc.), a cutting tool (e.g., a router, a saw, jigsaw etc.), a finishing tool (e.g., a jointer, a planer, etc.), a painting tool (e.g., a paint application machine, etc.), a power tool, any other tool known in the art, or any combination thereof”), the plurality of functional components comprising:
a work piece holding assembly that is configured to perform clamping or suction actions to a work piece (See Para. [0041], discloses “a gripper tool or end effector, e.g., a clamping tool or clamp, a vacuum gripper, etc.”, and see Para. [0049], “a gripper tool 300 holding a piece of building material 302”);
a fastener gun component that is configured to attach a fastener to a work piece (See Para. [0073], “attached coupling tool (e.g., a nailing tool [i.e., nail gun], a nail plate, a glue gun, a gluing tool, a welding tool, a fusing tool, a combination thereof, etc.) to execute one or more coupling operations (e.g., a nailing operation, application of glue, a welding operation, a fusing operation, a combination thereof, etc.) on one or more pieces of building material. For another example, the tool operation logic 604 can cause or be configured to cause a robot 12 or 14 operating an attached fastening tool (e.g., a clamp, a gripper end effector, a nail plate, a combination thereof, etc.) to execute one or more fastening operations (e.g., fastening or pressing two or more pieces of building material together, etc.)”, same as claimed); and
a spray component that is configured to perform spraying or extruding of materials on a work piece (See Para. [0042], “a spray foam insulation tool”); and
a power control box of the multifunctional end effector that is configured to supply power to the plurality of functional components.
Ames discloses in para. [0042], “power tool”, and in Para. [0041], discloses “he robot selects and attaches one or more of tools 26D-26F from the tool mount 28A”, but he doesn’t explicitly spell out a power control box of the multifunctional end effector that is configured to supply power to the plurality of functional components.
However, in the same filed of endeavor, Zhao teaches, a power control box of the multifunctional end effector that is configured to supply power to the plurality of functional components (See Para. [0010]-[0012], “A robotic arm has a connecting mechanism installed at the end and is used to connect an end effector. A toolbox is provided on one side of the robotic arm body, which contains multiple end effectors of different specifications, and the control system controls the movement of the robotic arm body, which can drive the connecting mechanism to move between the working position and a set position above the toolbox”, and see Para. [0021], “the main body of the robotic arm can automatically drive the connecting mechanism to the end effector required at the toolbox”, same as the claimed invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Ames with toolbox and drive mechanism [i.e., claimed power control box] as taught by Zhao in order automatically connect or disconnect or replace end effector, and/or opening/closing control of mechanical gripper in existing technology.
Claim 2. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, wherein the fastener gun component comprises a nail gun or a screw gun (See Ames, Para. [0042], “a tool for performing nailing operations”, and see Para. [0078], “screwing and/or fastening pieces 22 and 24 together”).
Claim 3. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, wherein the work piece holding assembly comprises a gripper assembly having at least two grippers that are configured to perform clamping actions to a work piece (See Ames, at least Para. [0054]-[0055], [0072]-[0073], discloses this claimed feature).
Claim 4. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 3, wherein the fastener gun component [See Ames, Para. [0013], “fastening tool”) of the multifunctional end effector is pointed in a same perpendicular direction as the at least two grippers of the gripper assembly of the multifunctional end effector, wherein the perpendicular direction is relative to the mounting plate (See Ames, Para. [0038], [0072], [0076], “execute one or more fastening operations (e.g., fastening or pressing two or more pieces of building material together, etc.)”, and see Fig. 1B, Para. [0077], fastening/securing pieces 22 and 24 in perpendicular with respect to one another).
Claim 6. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, wherein the work piece holding assembly comprises a suction cup assembly having a plurality of suction cups that are configured to hold and release the work piece by performing suction actions (See Ames, Para. [0071], discloses “a placement tool employ vacuum technology, e.g., vacuum gripper, hance performing suction, hold and release action”, same as claimed).
Claim 10. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, wherein the fastener gun component is configured to be movable in an angular rotation with respect to an end of the multifunctional end effector (see Ames, Para. [0074], [0076], “The jointure logic can be used to join multiple pieces of building materials at differing angles using any suitable fastening tool”).
Claim 11. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, wherein the fastener gun component is coupled to one or more linear actuators that are configured to extend the fastener gun component in an axial direction away from an end of the multifunctional end effector (See Ames, Fig. 1A-1B, “the arm is extended to hold and clamp the pieces 22 and 24 together with nailing function”).
Claim 12. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, wherein the spray component is equipped to spray paint (See Ames, Para. [0013], “painting tool”, and/or see Para. [0042], discloses “spray foam insulation tool”)
Claim 14. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, wherein the spray component is equipped to spray foam materials (See Ames, Para. [0042], discloses ““spray foam insulation tool”)”.
Claim 15. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, wherein the power control box comprises a pneumatic power control box, a hydraulic power control box, or an electric power control box (See Ames, Para. [0042], [0071]-[0072], discloses “a placement tool employ vacuum technology [i.e., constitutes pneumatic power control”, and see Para. [0036], discloses “the arms 120, 140, 121, 141 can include electric arms”. Additionally, see Zhao, para. [0086], “screwdriver works normally under the drive of the third motor”, and see Para. [0093], [0095] “The first motor 11 in the connecting mechanism of the robotic arm drives in reverse to unload the threaded connecting rod 10 and the threaded hole 12 of the end effector 2. The end effector is unloaded and placed in the tool hole 202, and The first motor 11 from the end connection mechanism of the robotic arm drives forward to engage the threaded connecting rod 10 with the threaded hole 12, so that the new end effector 2 is loaded onto the robotic arm.”, which constitutes an electric power control).
Claim 16. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, further comprising a computer control system that is configured to send control commands to the robot (See Ames, Para. [0063], [0065], discloses “high-level commands for instructing a computer-controlled robots of the robotic automated framing system to perform a project as part of the process of constructing a building structure”).
Claim 18. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 16, further comprising a second robot equipped with the multifunctional end effector, wherein the computer control system is configured to send control commands for completing a construction project to the robot and the second robot (See Ames, Fig. 1A-1B, discloses “second robot equipped with end effector, and see para. [0065], discloses “high-level command corresponds to one or more tasks that must be completed in order to construct a building component”).
Claim 19. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, further comprising an automatic feeder mechanism to supply work piece materials to the robot (See Ames, Para. [0073], “a robotic automated framing system 10 to operate a tool by attaching/fastening the tool to a work station, detaching the tool from a work station, and/or executing a function of the tool.”).
Claim 20 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim 1 and having substantially the same technical features as claim 1, differing only in the category of invention. Therefore, the claim 20 is rejected for the same rationales set forth as above for claim 1.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames et al. (US 2023/0226695) (hereinafter Ames) in view of Zhao et al. (CN110733049, this reference is from IDS filed on 08/02/2024, and attached English translate of CN110733049 is used for claim mapping) and further in view of Zevenbergen et al. (US 9,498,887 B1) (hereinafter Zevenbergen).
Claim 7. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 6,but the fails to teach wherein the fastener gun component of the multifunctional end effector is pointed in a same perpendicular direction as the suction cups of the suction cup assembly of the multifunctional end effector, wherein the perpendicular direction is relative to the mounting plate.
However, Zevenbergen teaches wherein the fastener gun component of the multifunctional end effector is pointed in a same perpendicular direction as the suction cups of the suction cup assembly of the multifunctional end effector, wherein the perpendicular direction is relative to the mounting plate See Fig. 1, Claim 7, discloses “A suction gripper, comprising: a first gripping surface comprising one or more first suction cups arranged to provide suction in a first direction when the first gripping surface is positioned adjacent to a first face of an object; a second gripping surface comprising one or more second suction cups arranged to provide suction in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the second gripping surface is linearly-movable relative to the first gripping surface”, same as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Ames in view of the teaching of Zhao with further a teaching of a gripper assembly of the multifunctional end effector that is pointed in a perpendicular direction with respect to a direction that the suction cups of the suction cup assembly as taught by Zevenbergen in order to stop movement of object during gripping the object.
Claim 9. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 6, but they fails to teach where the system further comprising a gripper assembly of the multifunctional end effector that is pointed in a perpendicular direction with respect to a direction that the suction cups of the suction cup assembly of the multifunctional end effector are pointed.
However, Zevenbergen et al. (US 9,498,887 B1) teaches a gripper assembly of the multifunctional end effector that is pointed in a perpendicular direction with respect to a direction that the suction cups of the suction cup assembly of the multifunctional end effector are pointed (See Fig. 1, Claim 7, discloses “A suction gripper, comprising: a first gripping surface comprising one or more first suction cups arranged to provide suction in a first direction when the first gripping surface is positioned adjacent to a first face of an object; a second gripping surface comprising one or more second suction cups arranged to provide suction in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction, wherein the second gripping surface is linearly-movable relative to the first gripping surface”, same as claimed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Ames in view of the teaching of Zhao with further a teaching of a gripper assembly of the multifunctional end effector that is pointed in a perpendicular direction with respect to a direction that the suction cups of the suction cup assembly as taught by Zevenbergen in order to stop movement of object during gripping the object.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ames et al. (US 2023/0226695) (hereinafter Ames) in view of Zhao et al. (CN110733049, this reference is from IDS filed on 08/02/2024, and attached English translate of CN110733049 is used for claim mapping) and further in view of Torabi et al. (US 2022/0055112 A1) (hereinafter Torabi).
Claim 13. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 1, but they fails to teach wherein the spray component is equipped to perform 3D printing extrusion.
However, Torabi et al. (US 2022/0055112 A1) teaches wherein the spray component is equipped to perform 3D printing extrusion (See Para. [0366], “a sample spray system that may be used in the formation of a three-dimensional object of the current disclosure”, and Para. [0400], “control the movement of a printer with respect to spraying”, and in Para. [0401], [0405], discloses “3D/three-dimensional printer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Ames in view of the teaching of Zhao with further a teaching of 3D printing technology as taught by Torabi in order to print 3D object.
Claim 17. The teaching of Ames as modified by the teaching of Zhao teaches the multifunctional end effector robotic system of claim 16, but they fails to teach wherein the computer control system comprises a control for toggling between automatic and manual control of the multifunctional end effector.
However, Torabi et al. (US 2022/0055112 A1) teaches wherein the computer control system comprises a control for toggling between automatic and manual control of the multifunctional end effector (See Para. [0321], “The cutting tools of an apparatus may be changed manually or may be changed with an automatic tool changer.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Ames in view of the teaching of Zhao with further a teaching of automatic and manual mode of switching tools/end-effector as taught by Torabi in order to speed up the printing process.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 5 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, and drawings/claims objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 5, the closest prior arts, Ames et al. (US 2023/0226695), Zhao et al. (CN110733049, this reference is from IDS filed on 08/02/2024, and attached English translate of CN110733049 is used for claim mapping), Zevenbergen et al. (US 9,498,887 B1) and Torabi et al. (US 2022/0055112 A1) fail to disclose “wherein the spray component is coupled to a linear actuator that is configured to extend the spray component in a same direction as the gripper assembly and the fastener gun component are pointed ” and in combination with other limitations of claim 1 and intervening claims 3 and 4.
Regarding Claim 8, the closest prior arts, Ames et al. (US 2023/0226695), Zhao et al. (CN110733049, this reference is from IDS filed on 08/02/2024, and attached English translate of CN110733049 is used for claim mapping), Zevenbergen et al. (US 9,498,887 B1) and Torabi et al. (US 2022/0055112 A1) fail to disclose “wherein the spray component is coupled to a linear actuator that is configured to extend the spray component in a same direction as the suction cup assembly and the fastener gun component are pointed ” and in combination with other limitations of claim 1 and intervening claims 6 and 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657