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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/19/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-15 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “similar” in line 3. There is no definition of “similar” in the specification. At most, the specification describes at Paragraph 0024 “If the air quality is substantially similar”. There is no description or definition for the limitation “similar”. Therefore, the specification lacks the written description for the limitation “similar”.
Regarding claim 15, the claim depends form claim 14 and is rejected for inheriting the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) issues.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “similar” in line 10. There is no definition of “similar” in the specification. At most, the specification describes at Paragraph 0024 “If the air quality is substantially similar”. There is no description or definition for the limitation “similar”. Therefore, the specification lacks the written description for the limitation “similar”.
Regarding claim 22, the claim depends form claim 14 and is rejected for inheriting the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) issues.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-15 and 21-22 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.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “similar” in line 3. There is no definition of “similar” in the specification. At most, the specification describes at Paragraph 0024 “If the air quality is substantially similar”. This definition does not describe the limitation “similar”. What is considered similar? Are the values being compared to falling in the same range of parts per a million (ppm) but are not the same number, therefore they are similar due to the range? Or are the numbers within an error tolerance due to the sensors? Therefore, the limitation “similar” is unclear based on the specification and is indefinite based on the multiple interpretations for the limitation “similar”.
Regarding claim 15, the claim depends form claim 14 and is rejected for inheriting the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the limitation “similar” in line 10. There is no definition of “similar” in the specification. At most, the specification describes at Paragraph 0024 “If the air quality is substantially similar”. This definition does not describe the limitation “similar”. What is considered similar? Are the values being compared to falling in the same range of parts per a million (ppm) but are not the same number, therefore they are similar due to the range? Or are the numbers within an error tolerance due to the sensors? Therefore, the limitation “similar” is unclear based on the specification and is indefinite based on the multiple interpretations for the limitation “similar”.
Regarding claim 22, the claim depends form claim 21 and is rejected for inheriting the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-10, 17, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Varughese et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0055456 A1) hereinafter Varughese.
Regarding claim 1, Varughese discloses a vehicular cabin monitoring system, the vehicular cabin monitoring system comprising:
an air sensing device disposed at a vehicular component, wherein the vehicular component is disposed within an interior cabin of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular cabin monitoring system [see Paragraphs 0037-0038 - discusses a carbon monoxide sensor that measures an amount of carbon monoxide air within a vehicle cabin and a particulate sensor that measures particulates, and see Paragraph 0044 - discusses that the olfaction sensor is within the passenger cabin of the vehicle];
wherein the air sensing device samples air at the vehicular component and generates sensor data representative of a sample of air at the vehicular component [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses that the sensors send measurements];
an electronic control unit (ECU) [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses a control module];
wherein sensor data generated by the air sensing device is transferred to the ECU [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses that the control module receives the measurements];
wherein the ECU comprises electronic circuitry and associated software [see Paragraph 0072 - discusses that the control module includes circuitry and stored code];
wherein the electronic circuitry of the ECU comprises a data processor operable to process sensor data generated by the air sensing device and transferred to the ECU [see Paragraph 0072 - discusses that the control module includes a processor, see Paragraph 0039 - discusses that the control module processes the measurements to determine amounts of the measurements];
wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system, at least in part via processing of sensor data generated by the air sensing device, determines a level of air contaminant within the interior cabin of the equipped vehicle [see Paragraph 0039 - discusses determining whether a measurement is greater than a predetermined amount], and
wherein the level of air contaminant is indicative of at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) a level of contaminant particulates within the interior cabin of the equipped vehicle and (ii) a level of contaminant gas within the interior cabin of the equipped vehicle [see Paragraphs 0039 and 0063-0064 - discusses that the control module determines the amount of particulates and the amount of carbon monoxide based on the sensor measurements];
wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system generates an alert to a driver of the equipped vehicle responsive to determination that the level of air contaminant is greater than a threshold level [see Paragraphs 0040 and 0066 - discusses that the control module generates an alert when an amount is greater than a predetermined amount, the alert is displayed in the vehicle on a display or is an audible alert]; and
wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system adjusts operation of a vehicular system responsive to the determination that the level of air contaminant is greater than the threshold level [see Paragraphs 0040 and 0065 - discusses opening a window, and see Paragraph 0041 - discusses turning on a HVAC system when the amount is greater than a predetermined amount].
Regarding claim 4, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Varughese further discloses wherein the level of air contaminant is indicative of the level of contaminant gas within the interior cabin of the equipped vehicle [see Paragraphs 0039 and 0063-0064 - discusses that the control module determines the amount of carbon monoxide], and wherein the contaminant gas comprises carbon monoxide (CO) [see Paragraph 0038 - discusses carbon monoxide].
Regarding claim 9, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Varughese further discloses wherein the vehicular system comprises a power window system of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system adjusts operation of the power window system to one selected from the group consisting of (i) lower one or more windows of the equipped vehicle and (ii) raise the one or more windows of the equipped vehicle [see Paragraph 0065 – “One or more remedial actions may be taken when the output signal of the comparison module 504 is in the second state. For example, a window actuator module 516 controls actuation (opening and closing) of one or more window actuators, such as window actuator 520, of the vehicle. The window actuator 520 opens (e.g., lowers) and closes (e.g., raises) a window of the vehicle. The window actuator module 516 may control one or more window actuators to open one, more than one, or all of the windows of the vehicle when the output signal of the comparison module 504 is in the second state. Opening the window(s) may include, for example, opening the window(s) to a partially open position further than the window(s) is/are presently open or opening the window(s) to a fully open position.”].
Regarding claim 10, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Varughese further discloses wherein the alert is generated within the interior cabin of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the alert comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of (i) an audio tone, (ii) an audio message, (iii) a haptic signal, (iv) an illuminated icon and (v) a graphical display image displayed at a display screen of the equipped vehicle [see Paragraph 0040 – “the control module 8 may generate an alert within the vehicle 5 when the amount of a chemical is greater than the predetermined amount. For example, the control module 8 may generate or display a visual alert, such as via a visual indicator 14 that is visible within the passenger cabin of the vehicle 5. The visual indicator 14 may be, for example, one or more indicator lights, a display, or another suitable type of visual indicator. Additionally or alternatively, the control module 8 may output an audible alert, such as via one or more speakers. Additionally or alternatively, the control module 8 may output a tactile alert, such as via turning on one or more vibrating devices, such as located in one or more seats, in a steering wheel, or in another suitable location”].
Claims 17 and 23 are analogous to claim 1 and are rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Varughese.
Claim 28 is analogous to claim 9 and are rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Varughese.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 2, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varughese further in view of Lindahl et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0182242 A1) hereinafter Lindahl.
Regarding claim 2, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Varughese fails to disclose wherein the vehicular component comprises a vehicular interior rearview mirror assembly of the equipped vehicle.
Rearview mirror assembles are inherent features of vehicles, therefore there is a rearview mirror assembly inherently present in Varughese. However, Varughese fails to disclose that the vehicular component where the air sensing device is located is at a rearview mirror assembly. Lindahl discloses an air sensing device located at a rearview mirror assembly [see Paragraph 0097 - discusses an air monitor sensor is located in the interior mirror assembly].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to locate an air sensing device (as taught by Varughese) at a rearview mirror assembly (as taught by Lindahl), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 18 and 24 are analogous to claim 2 and are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Varughese in view of Lindahl (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.).
Claims 3, 19, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varughese further in view of Kasarla et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0291739 A1) hereinafter Kasarla.
Regarding claim 3, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Varughese fails to disclose wherein the vehicular component comprises a vehicular forward-viewing camera module of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the vehicular forward-viewing camera module is disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of the equipped vehicle.
Kasarla discloses wherein the vehicular component comprises a vehicular forward-viewing camera module of the equipped vehicle, and wherein the vehicular forward-viewing camera module is disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of the equipped vehicle [see Paragraph 0004 - discusses a camera that is forward viewing that is disposed at a windshield (disposed at an interior rearview mirror assembly].
Kasarla suggests that the camera is for determining attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle [see Paragraph 0004].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the vehicle as taught by Varughese to include a vehicular forward-viewing camera module disposed at an in-cabin side of a windshield of a vehicle as taught by Kasarla in order to determine attentiveness of a driver of the vehicle [Kasarla, see Paragraph 0004].
Claims 19 and 25 are analogous to claim 3 and are rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Varughese in view of Kasarla.
Claims 5-7, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varughese further in view of Mou et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0194182 A1) hereinafter Mou.
Regarding claim 5, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 4.
However, Varughese fails to disclose wherein the threshold level of CO comprises 0 parts per million or greater.
Mou discloses a threshold level of CO comprises 0 parts per million or greater [see Paragraph 0049 - discusses that a safe detection value for carbon monoxide is less than 35 parts per a million].
Mou suggests that a safe detection value is clean, safe, and breathable air [see Paragraph 0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the threshold level as taught by Varughese to comprise 0 parts per million or greater as taught by Mou in order for the occupants to have clean, safe, and breathable air [Mou, see Paragraph 0005].
Regarding claim 6, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 4.
However, Varughese fails to disclose wherein the threshold level of CO comprises 70 parts per million or greater.
Mou discloses a threshold level of CO comprises 70 parts per million or greater [see Paragraph 0049 - discusses that a safe detection value for carbon monoxide is less than 35 parts per a million].
Mou suggests that a safe detection value is clean, safe, and breathable air [see Paragraph 0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the threshold level as taught by Varughese to comprise 0 parts per million or greater as taught by Mou in order for the occupants to have clean, safe, and breathable air [Mou, see Paragraph 0005].
Regarding claim 7, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Varughese further discloses wherein the level of air contaminant is indicative of the level of contaminant particulates within the interior cabin of the equipped vehicle [see Paragraphs 0039 and 0063-0064 - discusses that the control module determines the amount of particulates]
Mou discloses wherein a threshold level comprises contaminant particulates of 50 parts per million or greater [see Paragraph 0049 - discusses that a safe detection value for carbon monoxide is less than 35 parts per a million].
Mou suggests that a safe detection values is clean, safe, and breathable air [see Paragraph 0005].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the threshold level as taught by Varughese to comprise 50 parts per million or greater as taught by Mou in order for the occupants to have clean, safe, and breathable air [Mou, see Paragraph 0005].
Claim 20 is analogous to claim 7 and is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Varughese in view of Mou.
Claim 26 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Varughese in view of Mou.
Claims 8 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varughese further in view of Giordano et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0366793 A1) hereinafter Giordano.
Regarding claim 8, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 1. Varughese further discloses wherein the vehicular system comprises a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system of the equipped vehicle [see Paragraph 0041 - discusses an HVAC system 16]
Giordano discloses wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system adjusts operation of the HVAC system of the equipped vehicle between (i) operating in an air recirculation mode and (ii) operating in a fresh air mode [see Paragraph 0018 - discusses opening a recirculation door to introduce outside air in response to C02 concentration and closing the door when the C02 concentration reaches a threshold and operating a recirculation mode within the cabin].
Giordano suggests that ventilating fresh air into the cabin reduces buildup of gas contaminants [see Paragraph 0003]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the threshold level as taught by Varughese to adjusts operation of the HVAC system of the equipped vehicle between (i) operating in an air recirculation mode and (ii) operating in a fresh air mode as taught by Giordano in order to reduce buildup of gas contaminants [see Paragraph 0003]
Claim 27 is analogous to claim 8 and is rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Varughese in view of Giordano.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varughese further in view of Hosey et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0083661 A1) hereinafter Hosey.
Regarding claim 11, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Varughese fails to disclose wherein the alert is generated at a mobile device associated with the driver of the equipped vehicle.
Hosey discloses wherein an alert is generated at a mobile device associated with a driver of an equipped vehicle [see Paragraph 0040 - discusses an external UID that displays the information from the air quality module and that the external UID is a cell phone or tablet (mobile device), and see Paragraph 0048 - the UID control module may display or play an audio message on... the external UID 40 (cell phone), a driver is capable of receiving the alert].
Hosey suggests communicating elevated levels of a contaminant to people located externally from the vehicle [see Paragraph 0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the vehicle as taught by Varughese to generate an alert at a mobile device associated with a driver of an equipped vehicle as taught by Hosey in order to communicate elevated levels of a contaminant to people located externally from the vehicle [Hosey, see Paragraph 0003]
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varughese further in view of Pearce et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0001999 A1) hereinafter Pearce.
Regarding claim 12, Varughese discloses the invention with respect to claim 1.
However, Varughese fails to disclose wherein the vehicular cabin monitoring system wirelessly transmits information pertaining to the determined level of air contaminant to a remote server, and wherein the remote server receives information pertaining to determined levels of air contaminant from vehicular cabin monitoring systems of a plurality of other vehicles.
Pearce discloses wherein a vehicular cabin monitoring system wirelessly transmits information pertaining to the determined level of air contaminant to a remote server, and wherein the remote server receives information pertaining to determined levels of air contaminant from vehicular cabin monitoring systems of a plurality of other vehicles [see Paragraph 0033 - discusses that a server receives air quality parameters from a vehicle and other vehicles].
Pearce suggests that uploading the air quality data from vehicles are used to detect deviations that are indicative of upcoming maintenance issues [see Paragraph 0021].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the vehicular cabin monitoring system as taught by Varughese to include a remote server that receives information pertaining to the determined level of air contaminant from the vehicle and receives information pertaining to determined levels of air contaminant from a plurality of other vehicles as taught by Pearce in order to detect deviations that are indicative of upcoming maintenance issues for a vehicle [Pearce, see Paragraph 0021].
Regarding claim 13, Varughese and Pearce disclose the invention with respect to claim 12. Pearce further discloses wherein the remote server compares (i) the determined level of air contaminant within the interior cabin of the equipped vehicle and (ii) determined levels of air contaminant within interior cabins of at least some vehicles of the plurality of other vehicles [see Paragraph 0033 - discusses a server compares air quality parameters of a vehicle with air quality parameters from other vehicles].
Pearce suggests that by comparing the air quality parameters determines the health of a vehicles air cabin control system (ECS) [see Paragraphs 0015 and 0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the vehicular cabin monitoring system as taught by Varughese to compare (i) the determined level of air contaminant within the interior cabin of the equipped vehicle and (ii) determined levels of air contaminant within interior cabins of at least some vehicles of the plurality of other vehicles as taught by Pearce in order to determine the health of a vehicles air cabin control system (ECS) (vehicular cabin monitoring system) [Pearce, see Paragraphs 0015 and 0033]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following references have been identified as the most relevant prior art to the claimed invention(s):
Duan (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0084369 A1) hereinafter Duan is directed receiving air quality data from multiple vehicles at a server and the server performs evaluation and analysis of the air quality data at an air quality control program (at the server), the air quality control program learns or is trained to associate various conditions or situations with various in-vehicle quality levels or changes in-vehicle air quality level. Analyzing collected vehicle data related to in-vehicle air quality (e.g., nearby vehicles, traffic conditions, HVAC system status, in-vehicle air quality data, etc.) and the effects of one or more actions by on-board systems vehicles in-vehicle air quality using statistical methods and machine learning algorithms during training, the air quality control program determines instructions for actions for one or more vehicles such as increasing ventilation system fan speed, switching air circulation mode, closing windows or turning on air conditioning to maintain an in-vehicle air quality level that is at or below a pre-set in-vehicle air quality level [see Paragraphs 0050-0051].
However, Duan fails to disclose, or make obvious, these features of:
wherein, responsive to the comparison being indicative of the level of air contaminant within the interior cabin of the equipped vehicle being different from the levels of air contaminant within interior cabins of at least some vehicles of the plurality of other vehicles, the vehicular cabin monitoring system adjusts operation of the vehicular system to increase flow of environmental air into the interior cabin of the equipped vehicle.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of the evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias. It is thereby asserted by the Examiner that, in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shayne M Gilbertson whose telephone number is (571)272-4862. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday - Friday: 10:30 AM - 9:30 PM 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, Christian Chace can be reached at 571-272-4190. 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.
/SHAYNE M. GILBERTSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3665